Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1848-06-09
RICHMOND, VA
wednesday Morning, June 7, 1915.
TaE OLD REPUBLICANS AND The
nnoTrcTIyE POLICY.

PROTECTIVE POLICY.
In onr last "cba pier" we proved, from "lne re-
cord" quoting MIR. Jederson's own solemn oec'a,
raons for it, that he was opposed, "lIe1'y 0pp0s'a
TO the policy and principles OF Gen. ha'n',on
cs,sbrs,ed "Report on Manufactures" made IN
10, containing the first, as it is Inc strongest
and ables, recon m endaion OF "prolecliVe
r;an eyer made 10 the Congress oil the onlec
STATES These declarations, though mol olnc'a',
were made, il will be recollecied' 10 "eh' :" ssn'
;oo,on President OF the United STATES oy WI
Ieff.rson. Secretary OF Stale, in connection WIN
bis inimation OF desire 10 resign his efhce' ana
mill. The "RepoIt on Manufactures" was before
IN, House OF Representatives, and may therefore
be regarded as being nearly as formal snd ueH-
berale as il they had been official. Mr.. 'ene'soh
at that very time standing thus opposed 10 'he
protective policy, we inferred that he was DOUBT
less one of The respectable patrons oil opinions
| opposed to the announcement OF manufactures,
| who are referred TO by Gen. Hamilton in his Re-
no,, and We promised 10 show who some OF the
other respectable patrons" were.
They surely, were not Gen. Hamlon's poIl'i-
cal friends. who, doubtless, concuHed IN his
v;s,vs and were in favor this policy OF encour'
,a;n, manufactures We should expect more
probably, TO find them amonsst'he pol'ilca ifienos
Of MIR. Jefferson, with whom they would very
cer,aioly concur in opposition 10 this policy
Accordingly, it will be seen that Mr.. Madson'
without doubt, was, at that day, announcer OF 'nese
"respeclabe patrons"
in its first article on This subject, March 24!n,
ls4s, the Wing refers 10 Mr.. Madson's propo-
sion made in Congress on the 9Th Of April, l7e9
40 Law temporary tax on goods TO be imported
during the spring." and to counter propos'uon'
made on The next day, the 9.h OF April oy a"Mr.
Ezs;mmuns," for "a permanent Tariff" and who
said ,ha. among he articles sPecihed In Inc isl
presented by him, fare some calculated 10 en-
courage The productions OF our own country, and
nro,ec, our infant manufactures" From The de-
haze which these propositions al once gave rise 10,
(which NAV he found in the "Debaes in Con-
grpss. old SERIES" vol. |, p 1919 The Whis makes
numerous quotations, designed 10 show The views
OF this subject entered by "Mr. Sinnickson" and
sundry other gentlemen, with hard names, OF
whose politics il does not inform US, and we can.
didly profess ourselves utterly ignorant whether
they were Federalisls or Republicans. We shall,
therefore. no, trouble ourselves much wi h TIER
risrs though we think j, would not be difficult
10 show that the differences Of the Wing, drawn
from the isolated expressions taken from their
remarks, even standing alone, are entirely errone.
Gus; and that SO lar from these linen, who form
ed our Constitution, having recognised proec-
lion as nbarntivc objset, and not an incident
TO revenue" the very reverse was the case. This,
al any event, is easily shown from other parts Of
the deba,e Thus, Mr.. Madison says: (pase
1907 al suppose that the reason which induced
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.. Filzsim-
mons) to introduce The list of articles now be.
fore us, is similar 10 The one which acluaed me
TO enumera,e those in the first proposition, name
", on the principle of policy, o! bearing high
er duty than those LETT in The common mass 10
be taxed ad vaorem."
We would remark here hat these debates"
are obviously very badly reported, as The bung.
ling language attributed 70 Mr.. Madison in the
above extract sufficiently shows; and that they
afford very poor evidence, especially as "record"
evidence, of the views OF the speakers-pariicu-
larly when isolated expressions, torn from their
context, are relied on. They are obviously The
uncorrected work OF The reporters, loo Ignorant
of the subjec, of;enlimes 10 understand the IDEAS
intended 10 be conveyed By The speaker. They
furnish however, we believe, The only memorial
of these debates now left rs; and, by fair inter-
prelation and close attention, afford some tolcra-
bIe insight int the views OF the members who
participated in Them. Judge Marshalls abstract
Lille OF Washington, volume 5, page 1887 is la
ken from these same debates" But The Whig,
at any event, cannot object 10 heir authority, as
i, has introduced Them itself, as "proof from The
record"
II is plain, from the above extract, that Mr..
Madison considered The list Of articles introduced
by Mr.. Fiizsimmons cren, and on which he
(Mr. FL proposed TO put specific duties, like the
specific articles proposed by MIR. Madison him.
sell, 10 he intended solsy tor rcpcnue being faxed
with specific and higher duty only because they
would bear higher duty han those left in The
common mass; although, as Mr. Fizsimmon.
said, some OF them might b. .caiculated"-oI
course not chiefly dcs,gnea but incidentally TO
protec, manufactures, &c. "Mr. Boudno," ano
,her of the ''men" quoted by The Wing, also says
(page 1927 1.-THE present object OF The committee
is 10 RAISE rerenue," &C. But the whule debate
as we'll as the bill itself, which was adopted, Will
conclusively show to any candid and intelligent
reader, that the sole object of Congress al that day
was to raise revenue, whatever may have been
The views of "Mr. Sinnckson" and a few other
individuals; nor was protection as Substantive
object" nor "proleclive tariff as government
ia policy, ever seriously considered, until il was
presented by General HamiIton's Report on Ma
nufac,ures'' in 1871; and we have already seen
what then became OF il. when, as We before said,
this great report tell dead in the halls OF Con.
gress, and was heard of there no more.
So much for "Mr Sinnckson" and the rest. It
| is Mr.. Madison's opinions at that day which we
now wish to inquire into. We all know who he
was. Among Is quotations from this debate in
| 1889, the Wing, in its same article, slips in
four reru concise extracts from Mr. Madisons
remarks on the questions Of the amount of duty
which should BIO laid on four specific articles
namely, moassss, beer, steel and cordage, when
those questions were under consideration. Hav-
ing done SO, it concludes that amongst those who,
at that day, "recognized protection as substan-
tive object the foremost was James Madison,
thu father Of the Constitution, the author Of the
Resolutions of 49," &c Now, looking alone
to the meagre extracts of the Wing from Mr..
Madison's remarks on these particular articles,
which have no reference to his opinion on the
general policy, we might easily show, we be.
iieve, that the Wing has entirely misunderstood
their purport, or completely perverted their
meaning, and that they BY no means warrant its
conclusion. But il is not necessary; and we have
- Al