The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-10-24
From the London Economist.
AMERICAN PROTECTION AND REVENUE

From the London Economist
AMERICAN PROTECTION AND REVENUE.
From time to time, we have addressed ourselves
70 every form in which the advocacy Of the protcc-
tive principle has appeared applicable to the interests
Of this country. We purpose here 70 devote some
attention TO the arguments by which Il has boon,
and still is, by party commended for in the United
States.
The original principle on which the constitution
of the federal government was framed, repudatcd
altogether the right of Congress to tax the country
in any shape whatever, or for any purpose but that
Of revenue; and for many years the object Of protsc
ios to any particular class Of producers reject
ed az constitutionally inadmissible az considera-
ton for imposing duties upon goods imported. The
clear-headed and pureheasted founders Of that con-
stitution saw clearly that If protection was beneficial
10 any one class it could only be by imposing tax
upon all other classesthat IL the producer obtained
the advantage Of higher price and greater profit
il could only be at the cost Of the consumer-that
such gain 10 the former could only be promoted by
a corresponding loss to the laiter-and, therefore,
that simple justice TO all classes Of the community
forbade the Introduction Of such principle into
republican government. And, even after many
years, when self-incorporated companies of manu-
factures had obtained Sufficient influence in Con-
gress to create party which openly advocated the
principle Of protection, they only did so on the
plausible but delusivc plea of succoring young
efforts in the introduction Of new arts. But the
admitted that it would only be necessary or ustifa-
BILE to continue that principle up to the point when
the States should become an exporting country;
that beyond that point there would be mixture Of
folly and injustice for which even they would not
contend.
Moreover, we believe that large portion Of the
public in America, who even at this day advocate
the principle of protection, do SO only on the suppo
siton that its advantages can be equally distributed
to every class-having entirely overlooked the fact
that such is impossible. As an example, we may
refer 10 resolution recently adopted by the house
Of representatives in New Hampshire, by vote of
l61 to IS, by which they repudiate the "polcy
of taxing one portion of our citizens for the ben
eft of another-a tariff for protection merely, and
not for revenue; but advocate such system of inn
port duties, to be adopted in that spirit of equity,
caution, and compromise in which the constitution
was formed, as viii be sufficient to defray the
cessary expenditure Of an economical administration
of the general government, at the same time fur
nshing reasonable, and, far practicable, equal
incidental protection to all the great and important
departments Of our national industry"
Although large portion Of the people Of New
Hampshire are Of that class who deem themselves
interested in high tariff on manufactured goods,
we have no reason whatever to doubt the honesty Of
the motives which framed and carried that rcsolu-
ton. But it must be apparent to those who have
considered the subject that it involves objects, as
essential to justice, directly at variance and incom
luton, which repudiates the "policy of taxing
one portion of our citizens for the benefit Of
another, and tariff for protection merely, and not
for revenue" shows, at least that the effect of pro-
tective duties is fully understood, and their injury
and injustice admitted. As long as the American
people have SO unreasonable an aversion to direct
taxation, the only means left to the federal govern
ment for raising the necessary revenue must be by
import duties; and in proportion those duties are
derived from articles (which similar are produced in
the country, they must necessarily and incidentally
operate to that extent q protection to the home
producers unless, indeed, the import duty were
countervailed by corresponding excise duty on
such homo production, which would be equally inn
polite and impractcable. An import duty upon an
article which is not produced at home is not open
to this objection, inasmuch as the whole amount
which the public pay in the advanced price of such
articles goes directly and solely to benefit the reve-
nue. for public purposes. One of the most apparent
evils, therefore, of relying for revenue upon an inn
port duty placed upon an article partly produced at
home and partly imported, is, that while the price
of the whole quantity of such article is raised to the
consumer by the amount of the duty, only portion
Of il goes TO enrich the exchequer; while the re-
mainder, which is no less tax goes only to benefit
Q small class of producers The resolution of the
New Hampshire house of representatives seems
to admit this incidental protection, which is insepa-
rable from such import duties as those to which we
have alluded; but then it contempates the possibl-
ty Of destroying the injustice of such protection by
extending equally ITO all the great and important
departments Of our national industry" Now this
is an impossibility; and when this proposition is
clearly understood, it will show more strongly than
perhaps any other the impocy and injustice of pro-
lection. Suppose that Congress were to enact tar
if, placing the same duty on the import of every
article similar to those produced throughout the
Union: it must be quite plain that il would be dead
letter with respect to all such articles as America
produces in greater abundance than she consumes
and Of which, therefore, portion is exported; and
would only operate in raising the price Of such art-
ing portion of which must be imported. We have
lying before us list of the exports of American
produce from New York for single month--most
Of which, a. compared with former years. show a
rapid increase. The following is the list:
ApnIea ,.E4asH Hopa