The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-07-05


grant of power, and limited in its exercise by the
succeeding portion of the section, to objects there
in enumerated, and to which alone these collec-
tons, when made, are constitutonally applicable.
Now, sir, it does seem to me, that in the exercise
of the power to lay and collect duties, SC. we are
not authorized to look to any other object than
the section indicates and points OUT and it points
out no other purpose than revenue, and the objects
to which is shall be applied. The debts of the
government cannot be paid until the necessary
funds are collected for their liquidation; nor can
the "common Defence" or "general welfare" be
effected without the means If I am right, sir in
this position, (and have no doubt of it,) gentle
men who claim the constitutional power to protect
manufactures cannot be sustained by the specific
grants of the section just referred to the basis of
our argument to the contrary. But it is asserted
that the power to protect this interest is said to be
embraced in the final provisions of the eighth Sec
ton OF the constitution, and as properly included
within its limitations. If this assumption be cor-
rect the right only exists under the appropriating
power of Congress, and must be accomplished by
a legislative distribution of bounty to manufac-
turers. and not through the process of invidious
taxation Are gentlemen ready to claim this at
the hands of Congress' Are they ready to demand
bounty from the public treasury to manufacturers
in lieu of tax upon the consumer for their sup
port?
But, sir, let US suppose Tin order to place this
exercise of power by Congress in its true Light
that the duties derived, derivabe, from imports
are inadequate to the support of the government
and afford means to give to each manufacturer the
bounty needed, would it not be competent for Con-
gress, if the power assumed do really exist to lay
in addition to the duties for revenue, direct tax
for the payment of the bountes thus claimed, and
to be thus dispensed? Will gentlemen assert this,
or are they ready to meet such question before
the American people' And yet, such is the issue,
if the power claimed by them has any authority or
existence under the constitution. If the protective
power does exist under the provisions of the con-
sttution, as one of its original objects and designs,
it exists without limitation to the amount to be
appropriated, and the mode by which its collection
is to be accomplished; and if it is to be considered
as the settled constitutional doctrine, it must lead
to taxation as heartless and oppressive toward all
other classes of the country in its ultimate opera
tion, as the exercise of the same power does in
Great Britain upon the great laboring masses of
her people.
But, again, Mr.. Chairman, if the power has an
existence without limitation, the mode of its exer-
else is reduced to mere question of discretion;
Congress may just as well enact a law commanding
the people of any one State, or of the Union, not
to buy of England and France, but that their pur-
chases should be made from Massachusetts, or
Rhode Island; thus leaving the manufacturers of
these States TO fix their own prices upon their
goods, and upon the produce of the farmer in ex-
change 1t is true that this direct mode of accom-
plishing the same end might be objected to by
these protective gentlemen, lest the free people of
this country might again Gas they have done here
toore) rebel against fragrant exercise of the
power claimed by them. But does not the present
law, in effect, produce the same result? Has it
not driven, by its provisions, large amount of
foreign articles from our market Has it not COM
PEELED the purchaser of those taxed goods to pay
an additional cost, as bounty to manufacturers of
lS,
but Congress saying through the present law, that
American citizens shall buy of Massachusetts, or
Rhode Island, and not of England or France9-
Or, in other words, that if they purchase such and
such articles from abroad, they shall pay bounty
upon them for the support of the monopolies at
home engaged in the manufacture of such articles
that A shall sell his produce to at BIS own
price, and buy BIS articles at the extent of the tax
added to the cost of the foreign article. And vet,
sir, it is insisted that such law is not an nraction
of the limitations of the constitution, nor of the
rights attempted to be secured under its authority
The party, however, to which have the honor
to be attached, Mr.. Chairman, do not deny that
revenue tariff may not be SO regulated in its dis
ordinations as to afford protection incidentally;
but maintain on the contrary that all the protection
which the manufacturing class can receive from
the government must be afforded through its action
in the assessment of duties for revenue; for when
you levy an imposition of 25 per cent. for revenue
upon an article imported it must have the effect,
to the extent of the imposition, of protection to
the home manufacturer, by enabling him to sell at
an advance of rs per cent. upon the prices, by
reason Of the government tax upon the foreign
article. The power, then, sir, in my humble judg-
ment, exists mainly as an incidental power in the
exercise of the general power Of taxation granted
expressly to Congress, and not as direct and spe-
ciically granted power under the constitution
But, sir, aside from all constitutional grounds of
objection to the existing tariff law, there are OBJ
jections of expediency equally fatal. allude to
its destructive operation upon individuals, upon
classes, and upon the general national prosperity.
The tariff of 1928, known as the "bill of abomna-
tons, differed but little in its essential provisions
from the leading features of the present law; and
the history Of is developement, as exhibited in its
operation, sustains the objections which enter
tain to the act ofsl842.
Sir, it constituted one of the most efficient ele-
ments, combined with others of the period of ITS
| that ,,roetratad tho anproiaa and for n