The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-10-10
PROTECTION.

bama) Democrat" presents some striking and inter-
esting views. The fact is, the wings are right in
claiming Mr.. Clay, instead Of Mr.. Hamilton, as the
author Of the high protective system. 1t is true,
Lhe act Of June l7ih, 1889, does, 10 its preamble
declare, among other things that at is necessary for
the encouragement and protection Of manufac-
lures but the duties are of the most moderate rate
immensely short even of the duties of 1886.
The preamble to the act of August, 1880, recites
tina, Of the act Of June l7th, l7s9 and adds, "and
whereas the support Of government, and the dis.
charge Of the said debts render il necessary in
crease the said duties" This law drops, as one of
the purposes Of the augmentation, the encourage
ment and protection Of manufactured And the
TIN section provides that the duties are "to be col
lected and paid until the debts and purposes for
which they are pledged and appropriated shall be
fully discharged" The act Of June 7, 1874, Ieyies
"on all manufactures Of cotton or linen, &c, &c, or
Of which cotton and linen Il the material of chief
value, being printed, stained, colored per cent.
I'D valorem.n
Act Of March, 1904, imposes AN additional duty
OF per centnm, ad vaorem, TO assist in carrying
on the war against Trpol or any other Of the Bar
barry powers
July I, l5l2-Wp dthss-laid on 100 per cent,
or doubling existing duties, and made the average
about "a per cent. Highest duty under previous
acts did not exceed Is per centum; and the previous
| average rate was about 1871.
Act of February 25, 1916, continues the war du-
ties until June 80, 1876 and adds 70 per cent on
the former duties from that day.
Tariff act Of April 81, 1916. Fourth clause OF
the LIST section, shows the duties on woolens and
cottons were imposed for revenue purposes and the
rs per cent. was to continue for three years only,
and then 10 fall back to 20 per centum this is des-
tructye Of the protective principle. These duties
stood at 90 per centum from June, 1919, until April
l6, 1924, which is the first tariff in which in the en-
acting part Of the law, the principle Of protection is
distinctly recognised; that is TO say, the duty on
roOiisn good, Is to continue at IS per ad vao-
rem, until 18th June, 1926 and then to rise to 1884,
See second part Of the LIST clause Of the LIST section
tariff Of l82S-the odious tax.
The act Of ls42 raised the peace duties cohsdera-
bly, beyond the 81 per cent average of the war du-
ties Of 1919. Those under the act of 1916
are much higher than they were in the earlier ages
of our republic, when MIR. Hamilton even recon-
mended protection. They are higher under this
law than they would have been if it had not been for
the pressure Of the present Mexican war; And yet
Mr.. Webstes has proclaimed his intention to urge
its repeal, in order to bring back to the aboma-
BILE law of 1912 ......
Mr.. Hamilton never dreamed, in framing his
celebrated report on manufactures, OF running up
the duties to so high rate. Such an idea never
entered the mind Of Mr.. Jefferson and he directly
protests against the abuse of the revenue principle in
his letter of 1924. Mr.. Madison, too, though
he was in favor of the power to protect and
encourage manufactures, yet opposed to
the ercessire use Of that power, display
ed in some of rthe last tariff laws and, indeed, he
seems to admit in his much quoted letter to Mr..
Rves, that these abuses of the tariff power n,ay be,
(perhaps so under the act of 49, $50 enor-
nous to be at with the constitution itself" We
repeat, as we said in 1874, that Mr.. John s. Bar
bour, of Culpeper county, observes the thanks
Of every man who loves the TRUTH and respects the
memory Of Mr.. Madison, for placing his opinions
IN their true position before the public, and by
showing that Mr.. Madison, as well as Mr.. Jeffer-
son, were opposed to the enormous abuses Of pow
er which were perpetrated in some of the highly
protective tariff acts of Congress-" $500
The reader will be surprised to learn that these
opinions of the unconsttu,ionality of hgh-proec-
tive tariff were not confined to Messrs Jefferson and
Madison; but that they even extended to MI. Web
ster himself. This appears from the following eI
tract of speech made by him at Fanueil Hall on
the I'd October, 1920, the adoption of the report
and resolutions Of the Boston committee:
"There is power in names; and those who had
pressed the tariff on Congress and the country
had represented it Immediately and almost exclu-
svely connected with domestic industry and national
Independence In his opinion no measure could prove
more injurious to the industry of the country, and
nothing was more fancful than the opinion, that
tional Independence rendered such measure
ry He certainly thought might be doubted, whether
Congress would not be acting somewhat against the
spirit and intention of the constitution in exercising
apower to control essentially the pursuits of indi-
viduals IN their private concerns power to force
great and sudden changes, both Of occupation and
property, upon individuals NOT as incidental 10 The
exercise Of any other po,rer, but substantial and d.
rect po~er. II such changes wsre wrought Incidental
" only andre lie necessary consequence Of such inn
post Congress, for the leading purpose of rspenue,
should enact, then They could moi be complained Of Bat
he doubted whehr Congyss fairly possessed te power Of
turning the incident into The principal nnd instead of
leaving manufacturers to the protection of such laws
as should be passed with primary regard to reve-
nue. Of enactng laws toh the apoioed object Of giving
preference TO particular anufaetmes, with entire
disregard to all the considerations Of revenue, and in
stead oflayng such imposts as tooud best ans,oe the
purpose Of raising revenue, with the least burden
The public, carrying the impos certain articles TO
burdensome excess, ioih full knowledge that the
increase Of duty giu diminish the amount Of revenue
raised" .H
But we close our article with the following ex-
tract from the "Eufaula Democrat" of Sep. %;
"PporEoroN.--It is a favorite habit of the pro-
tectonists, when their system is assaed, to quote
the opinions of the fathers of the republic in its ia
They forget that the protection for which they
now contend, had then no advocates. The day OF
l. ,..I
Very moderate duties were then imposed with
view to revenue and the question Of protection
never raised. II is true that the messages Of some
Of our earliest presidents speak of the encouragement
Of domestic manufactures by imposing duties upon
imports; but these duties, in fact, exceeded
the bounds Of revenue; and with such protection our
infant manufactures were content In 1889, when
the first tariff bill was passed, the country, with
population Of less than four millions, had incurred
debt Of eighty millions Of dollarsthe expenses Of
the wsr--yei the average rate Of duties did ex-
coed 10 per cent s
"Such was the course Of things for long series
- - ~. NJ