Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-11-06
THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, VA.
Wednesday Morning, November 4. 1916
40 c.op11 m FLORIDA.

MIR. CABELL OE TLSAADA'
The article in Yesterdays Times does not bel
ter Mr.. Cabelrs condition. Indeed, the evidence
brought forward by that paper completely sus-
,ains our position. We commended that Mr.. Ca
bell was committed against protective
Tariff, and, as The representative OF flori-
da, was bound so to vote. 10 rebuff Ihis ar
gument, the Times makes an extract from
MIR. C.,s circular, which we will also quote,
because it fully supports what We commended ior'
We ask particular attention 10 The passages which
we have Ioliciscd, and we DEFY any candid man
TO say, that Mr.. c. is not committed against
protective Tariff. We pass over the slur at the
"Brilish agent" sc. That british agenl"is an
able and enlightened merchant and citizen OF Bos-
lon Peter T. Horner, Esq, who has been taken
up by The Democrats as their candidate for Con-
sress, because of his liberal and expanded views
upon our true commercial policy:
"My views on this subject are pretty generally
known. The revenue for the supper! OF The Go
vernment must be raised by direct taxation, or
indirectly by the operation OF The Tarl1. pre-
fer The latter system and IN ABUSING the ueldis
of the Tariff, am American enough to desire TO
see such determinations as will afford incidental
protection 10 the great interests OF the American
people, taking care as Jar as possible, mat one class
OF industry be yot fostered al The expense Of an
otler. have moi that sympathy for British inle-
rests which causes certain American statesmen
10 see, with undsguised satisfaction, committee
room of The American Capitol proslituled 10 The
use oil British agent of British manufactures,
and makes them exull at the fact that The British
House OF Lords has paid our present Secretary
of The Treasury the Unprecedented compliment
(i) vi printing his voluminous report Tor the edlfl-
Gallon oil British statesmen.
"Bul am opposed 10 tariff purely for prOtee-
lion; for Ibclere the pOlcer Of Congress limited IN
thus regard 10 the object Of rerenne. Let no more
revenue be raised than is necessary or an econon,
cal administration Of Tie Government. II this o5-
,cct can be attained in way 10 add 10 the strength
and prosperity OF the country, hotd II 10 be Inc
duty OF every patriot TO adopt it,
II do not believe that 'the higher the duly, The
lower The price," bu, utterly deny that ttc duty
is TAI TO the extent OF The duty" II this were
true, you would not see your cotton bagging quo
led al 9 ID to 10 Cts, and nails al cts.
"1He Tariff of 40 IS BY no means perfect
| am opposed 10 many Of its provisions. In serc-
raj instances the duties arc loo high. nona ad-
vocatc us modification.
ITO express nv views on this subject in few
words: am in favor of Tariff, not prohibito-
nv but moderate in The dulics imposed discrimi-
mating and affordng incidental protection, acith-
IN MeYeueaue Standard. Such Tariff was adj
yocaled BY The hrsl Congress oflhe United States
by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Munroe
and Jackson"
Every Tariff is necessarily protective. Bul
the Wings contend for direct protection, and The
Democrats for incidental protection. Does not
Mr. Cabell take this groundl He is in favor Of
Tariff, mot prohibitory, but moderate in The
duties imposed, discriminating and affording IN
cidental protection within the rercaue standard'-
provided, however, that "one class OF industry be
not ioslered at The expense of another" He be-
lieves with the Democrats, that Congress has no
power TO grant protection" for he believes 'the
power Of Congress Hn,,ted III his regard TO THE
OBJECT OF REVENUE" Here is the gis Of the
whole question, and Mr.. Cabell takes the true
Democratic ground. While he denies that 1.-THE
duty is tax TO the extent OF The Duty" he repu-
dates the Wing humbug, that ''the higher the
duty, the lower the price," he is "opposei to
many OF the provisions Of the Wing Tariff Of
'i2-in several instances The duties are loo high
Can any one deny that Mr.. Cabell here direct
ly denies The doctrine of "proleclon," and arrays
himself against the Wing protective Tariff"
Party. Let him take this Circular in his hand
when he enters the Hall Of Congress, and for con-
sis,ency's sake, he is bound 10 vote against any
scheme for the Restoration" OF The Tariff Of
1912, for which Mr.. Clay has issued his imperial
orders from Ashland, and against all measures
direr,y :-.oi"iro - ",--.---.-- -A..siicdH
industry" We are sure that The Philadelphia
North American, and other Federal Tariff prints
al the North, will not look upon this exposition oil
Mr.. C's views as any Thing like "sound doctrine"
upon the great question of the day. They raised
shout Of triumph over the election in Florida;
but they must acknowledge that it is no victory
for a "Protective Tariff" but simply an acces.
sion 10 the political opposition 10 Democratic
Administration. This is comfort enough for
them, we doubt not; for their crocodile tears over
The manufactured "proslralion Of American indus
try" we're mainly designed 10 make Wing politi.
cal cal al.
But, says the Times this circular was written
before Mr.. C. heard ofthe passage of the Tariff OF
1876:
"Thal he did not approve of that law is abun-
dainty evident from what we know Of his course.
In a private letter 10 gentleman in this city,
written with no idea of lis publication, Mr.. Ca
bell uses such expressions as these:
4 conducted The canvass on purely national
issues In all my speeches was ultra Wing.
After my speech al this place (Talahas-
see,) We heard no more about my trying 10 i'm
pose myself on The people as Democrat After
that, | was too much OF a partisan, too abusive
OF the Democracy &c. > | was resolved
10 be elected as Wing, drew party lines, advoca-
ted the measures OF The Wing party, and now the
STATE is Hhg.'
This language is proof enough Of MIR. Ca
bells poilica quality, in respect 10 the Tariff, as
we'll as all other Wing measures"
We here again give Mr. Cabel the benefit Of
his full defence, but much is YET wanting TO prove
him 10 be friend OF Protective Tariff. Mr. c.
is Whig-so is Mr.. Hlliard OF Alabama, and
he voted for the "Brilish Tariff OF 1916. The
Southern Journal of miedgeville, is Wing, and
yet that paper strenuously contends hat the Wing
party OF Georgia utterly deny the doctrine Of "pro-
lection" and are opposed 10 The Tariff OF 1916,
because II is lao protective. Such Wing Mr..
Cabell may be, and yet committed against pro-
teclive Tariff.
We conclude by referring TO The evidence OF an
old and respectable citizen of Florida, who un.
derslood Mr.. c. as distinctly pledsing himself in
public address TO vote in Congress according
TO The vote of his State, not only upon the Tariff
but all other questions. Putting aside the strong
evidence furnished by Mr.. C.'s own Circular, this
is enough to sustain our position tina, the cleo
tion of MIR. c. is test OF the political sentiment
Of The State and is far from satisfactory that Flo
Tda is in favor Of protective Tariff.
After all the Wing boasling over The election
of another Wing member OF Congress from Al
bama, Mr.. Beman, to keep company with "lhe