Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-08-06

manufactures, at least should have been thought to
require additional aid from government"
Such being MIR. Webster's opinions delivered in
the House of Representatives in 1924 he very natu-
rally remarked, when he rose 10 advocate the high
protective tariff Of l62S-the first famous "bill of
denominations -" Mr. President, this subject is sur
4 rounded with endorsements all sides" Among
these embarrassmenis doubtless stood the following
fact, stated also in the of the same
Speech in 1928:
{" II Is now nearly fifteen years since, among the
first things which | ever ventured to say here, was
the expression of serious doubt whether this govern
nent was fitted by its construction to administer aid
and protection to particular pursuits whether having
called such pursuits into being by indications of its
favor, 1t would not afterwards desert them when
troubles came upon them and leave them to their fate
Let us the explanation of the vote given by
Mr.. Webster for the tariff of 1928, under these same
a embarrassments." The explanation occurs in the
speech delivered in the Senate in $780, in reply to
MIR. Hayne, Of South Carolina:
sin 1916, / had not acquiesced in the tariff. then
supported by South Carolina. To some parts of it,
especially, felt and expressed great repugnance.
held the same opinions in 1921 at the meeting in
Faneuil Hall, to which the gentleman has alluded
said then and say now, that. original question,
the authority of Congress to exercise the revenue
power, with direct reference to the protection of
manufactures, is questionable authority-far more
questionable, In my judgment. than the power of
internal improvements.
with great majority of the representatives of
Massachusetts,, voted against the tariff of 1894
My reasons were then given. and " i'll not now
peat them.
1.-The bill of 1927, limited, as l have said to the
single object in which the tariff of 1924 had mani
testify failed IN Its effect passed the House of Repre-
sentatives but was lost here. We had then the act
OF 1928. need not recur TO the history of meas
ure so recent Its enemies spiced it with whatsoever
they thought would render dstastefu; Its friends
took it. drugged it was. Vast amounts of property
many millions-had been invested in manufactures.
under the inducements of the act of 1924 Events
called loudly thought, for the further regulation
to secure the degree of protection intended by that
act was disposed to vote for such regulation, and
desired nothing more.''
Mr.. Webster here tells us that he desired nothing
more In the way of protection than the act of 1924
He voted for the tariff of 1923 to regulate that of
1924, particularly with respect to the duties on wool
lens,) and not for larger measure of protection.
The tariff of 1924 was high tariff; but it alto
gether more moderate than the tariff of 1928 and it
was moderation itself compared with the tariff of
1872. Now If extraordinary protection to particular
interests be- as Mr.. Webster says above that il is
unjust; If such protection be- he alleges, the exer-
else of very questionable power" by our govern
ment; if the protection OF 1924 was sufficient, and
more than sufficient, in Mr.. Webster's Judgment to
foster manufactures then in comparative infancy
into unprecedented growth; if these things be- as
Mr.. Webster states them to be, then upon what
grounds can he now sustain the admitted and mon
strous extravaganza and inequality of the existing
tariff!