Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1846-06-08


other paper that the MiledgepHle Recorder, an
able and influential Wing journal, had taken
ground in favor of the new Tariff scheme of the
Administration. We then thought there must be
some msapprehension az to the true position of the
Recorder, n paper which we regularly receive,
and in which we had observed no symptoms of an
affinity with LocoGocoism on this important sub
lect and the reader will perceive by the annex
ed article from the Recorder, that the rejoicing of
the Enquirer its supposed new convert was
altogether premature. We copy the remarks of
the Recorder, however, for another reason-be-
cause they expose, in a brief but clear manner the
deceptive character of the Administration tariff
scheme-violatiug, as il does, equally with the Ia
riff of 1912, the great principle which lies at the
foundation OF all their assaults upon the existing
system, by emphatic recognition of the right
and the duty of the Government TO DISCRIMINATE
FOR PROTECTION, at the very moment that they
denounce that doctrine as alike volative of the
Constitution and unjust TO the non. protected In
ferests The Recorder says:
ave have noticed the remarks Of the Richmond Enqui.
rer and Richmond Wing relation n remark OF this
paper the subject OF the tariff forth by the admi-
nsaon. 1t is enough for the present say, there
the democracy, in the Of
principle and which has been the only point of difference
meaning OF words if the principle Of protection
bated heretofore, in this quarter at least by the democra
cy, is enforced by the proposed bill. Why is sugar
highly protected by the bill, and tea and coffee left free,
but protect the home interest and that which
made in the country1 Why has the highest pro-
lection, but protect the home iron busness7 Why
salt like and coffee, left iree1 They about OF
similarly with the people, and why put
OF taxation, but TO protect the domestic salt maker
maker and maker, while there no tea and
coffee growers TO be protectedl
'he short Of the the principle taxation
with view protection, the Democracy Of the South
have fought the Whgs have deuded the people and have
injured with them. With the principles admit
ted and acted IN their tariff measure they de-
lude the people longer, and shall do far
be the means OF preventing them. The principle
Of protection being yielded by the Administration say
now, what said before: the degree that be
matter for the discretion OF members-especiay, would
hold II for the discretion Of those who, from having
the control of the Government, bound devise the
means TO carry il
'For ourselves, say furthermore, what VIC have al
ways said, and what a great deal to the purpose
what Mr. Clay has said and will say again- the present
tariff in any Of its details high land dispos-
ed think upon thar it is SOY reduce H. Dsciimi
nate for home interests here the principlc but leave
the degree of such discrimination (nnd here
D expedeney TO be governed by justice and sound dis
creton"
We need hardly say that concur entirely in
the remarks of the MilIedgevle Recorder.
few days ago. indeed, we presented to the public
views almost identical with those forcibly sug-
gested by that paper, and endeayored to expose
the fraud which the leaders of the Administration
party are attempting to play of upon the country,
by proposing simply reduction of duties, while
leaving in full force and effect the principle of pro-
lection the overthrow of which, if they were com.
mitted to any thing by their pied ges, they are
bound to accomplish. Why, as it is well asked.
are tea and coffee placed in the free list, while
calf haay iufias i'm
posedl II cannot be because tea and coffee are
necessaries Of life, for they are manesty less so
than either Of the other articles mentioned. Why,
then, the " discrimination, If II be not for the
single and express purpose of protecting sugar,
iron, and salt, each of which ourselves produce,
by drawing revenue from them, a portion Of
which at least might he RENTED # an equal duty
were imposed upon the two articles which we do
not produced Why, too, do we on the free
list a number Of articles essential TO the manuiac-
turer, while upon the goods into the fabrication
of which they enter the heaviest duties are le-
vedl Ia a strictly revenue tariff" there should
be no determinations, except such as are neces-
sary to put money into the public Golfers. There
should be no free list, unless il be upon those
toles If there be any such, which will bear no
duty. Upon every commodity imported duty
should be impOsed-not upon the horizontal
scale, at one time the fayorte idea of the
sky-scraping Abstractonists-bu discriminating
for revenue" alone that is to say the lowest duty
should be imposed upon each article, which, in the
aggregate, would yield an amount adequate to the
wants of the Government. Tea and coffee, in a
revenue tariff, ought to bear high duty as su.
gar, salt and iron; and the raw material ought 10
~ Il 4
fabric Of which il forms constituent part. In
departing from this rule, the Admin stration re.
pudiates the doctrines of Secretary Walkers Re
port, flies in the teeth Of It's solemn pledges to the
country, and nulldes every argu ment by which
the tariff Of 1912 MS been ass aed-in one word,
Il stultifes and condemns ITSELF and emphatcally
proclams TO the country that i ~ impossible 10
administer the Government upon the principles,
10y which, nevertheless, in the face Of this pracu.
cal and humilialing confession it Processes to be
governed.
The true issue between the Administration and
Wing parties, on this question, as we have here.
lofore observed is not 40 trivial matter, compa-
raiively speaking, as a mere reduction Of duties
aud the degree Of protection that ought to be aor.
led 20 home productions. II is not whether sugar,
IRON, salt and other articles shall enjoy the ad.
vaniages Of a 90 OF Of a 30 por cent duty; but
II is whether they shall be protected a, all. We
affirm that they ought to be; and hence the e1.
rmption Of tea and coffee, which we cannot pro.
luce. and Of the raw material essential to the e1.
stence Of the manufacturer, IL necessary, in or
Der that proper determinations may be made for
hat purpose. Bot our opponents declare that
congress has no right TO protect any article by le-
tisatiou, and that every protective duty al once
tan upon tho consumer and a bounty to the pro-
lucer or manufacturer Is il not, then, the gross
~ cfTconlery, while in the very act Of proclaim.
NC tho unconstiiutonality and iniquity Of Proiec.
ave duties, themselves 10 levy duties for Pro,ec.
Toni i not an insult to the understandings Of
The people, after having presented them with this