Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-08-20
MIR. CLAW ON the Tariff.

1t is part of the burden of Wing complaints against
the administration for proposing any modification OF
the tariff of 1872 that MIR. Clay if he had been elect
ed would have let the existing tariff stand as II Is.
This is much say that in the judgment OF the
wings Mr.. Clay has changed his opinions so often on
the tariff that he would change them again, II elected
President There can be no mistake about this, we
think We presume no Wing questions that the
tariff of 1912 is high tariff Yet in lS43 MIR.
Clay in his letter Meriweher of Georgia, declar-
ed emphatically 81 nerer tarOr OF tchat re-
garded high tariff
As if to make assurance doubly sure on the SUBJ
ject, Mr.. Clay adds in the same letter.
81 did not vote for the tariff of 1928 for which Mr.. Van
Buren, Col Benton, Col Johnson, Mr.. Wright and 9TH
Of opponents did and Is remarkable that
from that beriod nv ereriions Congress hare been
directed 10 the reduction and odfcatiOn Of torfs
Now, if he was opposed to the tariff of 1928, and
was 'never in favor Of high tariff what
grounds could he sustain the existing tariff which is
Higher than that of 1923, or than any other tariff
which have had Especially how could he sus-
tain the existing law, when since 1S2S he has
constantly exerted himself in Congress 'for the re-
duciion and modification of tariffs 7"
But perhaps it is thought Mr. Clay would permit
the tariff of 1912 TO stand because IT embodes the
principle of protection Here is his declaration on
that subject made in the Senate of the United States
on the 2lst January, 1912, some months only
before the tariff of 1912 was passed
"Carry out then, the spirit oil the compromise ACT
look to REVENUE ALONE for the support of Govern
Do not raise the question of protection. which
had hoped had been put 10 rest. THERE Is NO Ne
CESSITY OF PROTECTION FOR PROTECTION. "
But it may be thought that since the tariff of 1912
rejects the principle of al valorem duties, at least
prefers specific duties with certain minimum varia-
tions, Mr.. Clay might that account permit that
tariff to stand. To those who hold such opinion,
the following passage from the speech Of Mr.. Clay in
the Senate on the 4th of March, 1872 may prove in
structve:
| "What are the other principles Of The act First
there is the principle that fixed ad valorem duty shaH
prevail aud be IN oree at all times for one, lam tCH
ing 10 abide by that principle There certain vague
sfoat the utility and necessity of specific du
ties and discminations which am persuaded arise from
want Of right understanding fthe subject. We have
had the ad vaorem principle practically in force
the compromise act passed. aud there has been diff
6culy in administering the duties Of the treasury that
principle"
The same doctrine is emphaticay summed up in
one Of the resolutions submitted by Mr. Clay to the
Senate the 25th of February, 1912. The resolu-
ton is as follows:
"Res0ired, That in the adjustment of tariff to raise
amount of twentysix millions of revenue the prnc
Piles of the compromise act should be generally adhered
to- and that especially maximum rate Of sd valorem du
ties should be established from which there ought to be
little departure as possible.
This is plain enough it is needless to pursue the
subject.-Union.