The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-27
MR.. CLAY ON THE TARIFF.

1t is part of the burden of wing complaint again 81
the administration for proposing any modification
of the tariff of 1872 that Mr. Clay, if he had been
elected would have let the existing tariff stand as
is. This is as much to say that in the judgment
of the wings Mr.. Clay has changed his opinions 80
often on the tariff, that he would change them again
if elected president. There be mistake
about this, we think. We presume no wing questions
that the tariff of 1912 is high tariff. Yet in lS43
Mr.. Clay in his letter to Meriwether, of Georgia,
declared emphatically 81 NEVER WAS IN FAVOR OF
WHAT | REGARDED AS A HIGH TARIFF"
As if to make assurance douby sure on the sub
ject Mr. Clay adds in the same letter.
81 did not vote for the tariff of 1923, for which
Mr. Van Buren,, Col. Benton, Col. Johnson, Mr..
Wright and others of our opponents did vote, and
is remarkable, that from that period, my ererons in
Congress haze been directed 10 the reduction and mod
cation Of tariffs"
Now, if he was opposed to the tariff Of 1923,
and was "never in favor of high tariff" on what
grounds could he sustain the existing tariff, which is
higher than that of 1928, than any other tariff
which we have had' Especially, how could he
sustain the existing law when ever since 1923 he
has constantly exertod himself in Congress "for the
feuuCtOn anu vi thiIhsi
But perhaps it is thought Mr.. Clay would per-
nit the tariff of l542 to stand because it embodies
the principle of protection Here is his declaration
on that subject, made in the Senate of the United
States on the 2st January, lS42-some sepen months
only before the tariff of 1s42 was passed
Gary out, then, the spirit Of the compromise
act; look to REVENUE ALONE for the support
of government. Do not raise the question of pro-
lection, which | had hoped had been put to rest
THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF PROTEC-
TON FOR PROTECTION"
But it may be thought that since the tariff Of
1912 rejects the principle of ad valorem duties, or
at least prefers specific duties with certain minimum
variations, Mr.. Clay might on that account permit
that tariff to stand. To those who hold such an
opinion the following passage from the speech Of
Mr.. Clay in the Senate on the 4th of March, 1912,
may prove Instructive
"What are the other principles of the act First,
there is the principle that fixed ad vaorem duty shall
prevail and be in force al all times; for one ,ong
10 abide bythat principle. There certain vague
notions ahoat to the utility and necessity of spe-
ci6c duties and determinations, which am per-
s,aded arise from want of a right understanding
of the subject We have had the ad valorem prnci.
pie practically in force ever since the compromise
act was passed, and there has been difficulty in
administering the duties of the treasury on that
principle"
The same doctrine is emphatically summed up
in one of the resolutions submitted by Mr.. Clay
to the Senate on the 25th of February, 1si2. The
resolution is as follows: ...
Resolved That in the adjustment Of tariff to
raise an amount of twenty-six millions Of revenue
the principles Of the compromise act should be gen
orally adhered to, and that especially a maximum
rate Of ad valorem duties should be established
from which there ought to be as little departure AZ
possible"
This is plain enough; it is needless to pursue thu
subject, a'.H