Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1848-06-09

ment of agriculture and other manulacsu DC,
that he questioned its propriets even on .lia'
score. duty would tend to depress many ais,
chanic arts 10 the proportion ina. !. p,;.,o ~
this; he thought il best to reserve TINS arG,e ~
the non.enumerated ones, where II ', moo'N -
subject to Eve per cent. ad Va'ofe"
This is foe specimen, We admit Oh 'ae i.n,
perfect and buugling character oil these Deoa's.
But we submit, that taking the whole Pa'as, apa
together and interpreting il iailiy, even " ava :.
reference 10 any thing else Mr.. maa'so" ". -,
said during the debates, il plainly n'ea"' M
that if this article, STEEL were CONSIDERED on,y a.
"connecred with The improvement OF agriculture
and other manufactures" "cpsn on taas score !, MI
Madison should question The propl'eg - sA
specific duty on ii, as such duty wou'u 'e.u ~
press many mechanic arts in The proportion ina.
i, projected this; but, as he thought Inc onlec' u
those who advocated The high 'pecinc uuS "',
solely The announcement of the manufacture ana
moi revenue, he was opposed 10 sucn uu'' a"'
recommended that steel should DC .ia'''
the non.cnumeraled articles, where "01'N
subject 10 only Ave per cent. ad valore'n' WI
Madison then was obviously opposed " '"'"s .
dnly which he thought was designed soleiy lof
the Encouragement Of manufacture "''A
revenue that is TO "proteclon as a su0'ia"''Se w.
;ccf," and this is shown by the very remarks con-
tanned in a single paragraph, from which 'ne
Whie extracts few lines and prints le" wofos'
50 as 10 aid in satisfying itself and IN Pefsuading
o,h.,s ,b,, Mr.. Madison was "fo,ensos" in l759
among the advocates OF "protectIon as s'1osta"'
~. ,b;s,,n We insist that these remarks oil Mr..
Madison. when taken together, not only do not
fond n .uslain The conclusion OF the Wing, but
show the very reverse OF il 10 be true. We cheer.
fully concede that the Wing may we'll have
misunderstood, as we believe il did misunder-
stand, The true purport OF these remarks But
il is immaierial whether its error was the result
OF inadverence or preconcepton-ot The haste II
seems 10 pride itself upon, or The purpose ofsup.
porting theory rather Than arriving a, tru,h,'
which i, would attribute TO us-ils readers
will see from this sample how little reliance is TO
be placed on scrap quotations, even when printed
in big letters.
By the same process, We will undertake 10
show that the Congress of 1889 advocated tempe
ranz as IA substantive object" and considered i.
no, only the right, but the duty Of the General
Government, 10 take the morals of the country
under its holy keeping, and encourage temperance
by legislation, and that too by The exercise of its
taxing power-in other words, that il was per-
feclly legitimate tor the Government 10 tax the
people 10 order 10 make them sober. As thus:
In the same debate, article rum, page 49, Mr..
Firzsimmons is made TO say "But il will be
readily granted me, that there is no object from
which we can collect revenue more proper TO BE
SUBJECTED TO HIoH DUTY THAN ARDENT SPIRITS
or EVERY KIND; il we could lay the duty so high
as TO lessen consumption in any degree, The bet
ter. As The gentleman (Mr. Lawrencel has just
Observed, il is no, an article Of necessity, but OF
luxury, and luxury OF THE MOST PEaNIcrcUs
r,sp." Page 1872, Mr. Madison said: Il would
lax ibis article" (rum) with as high duty as
can be collected" and Mr.. Boudinot added =
"The present object OF The committee is 10 raise
revenue, and no article on the list before you is
more likely 10 be protective than this one; but A
HIGH DUTY MAY ALSO DISCOURAGE THE USE OF AR
DENT SPIRITS" &c.
Now is il mol as clear as mud, tina, "these men,
who famed our Constitution" considered tempe
rance "a substant y, obis,t" Of government, clear
" embraced in The taxing power, and entitled 10
all surs OF encouragement especially by laying
on taxss-nderd, we're for converting Congress
itself INTO a e.eat Temperance Society," We
doub, nv, onr "teeota" friends will be surprised
!, ,hi.,discovery. We must warn them, how
evr that though We have made il FIR Them, and
mnch Is We really rs,eem their lauiable motives
and ad nire their jealous efforts 10 benefi! their
fellow men, by their voluntary associations and
publc.sprited appeals if they begin 10 look TO
government for aid, 10 petition for its patronage,
and especially 10 seek protection for temperance
nv taxation on men, we shall have 10 turn our
baueri.s upon them, and prove this discovery OF
ours 10 be all mere moonshine. Sill i, is al leas
as true and demonstrable as the discovery OF the
Whig. and The Congress OF 1879 obviously de-
,erninsd tina, protection" 10 temperance was just
as mu.h "a substantive object" OF legislation as
.,nro,elion 10 manufactures" These isolated
quotations misunderstood, misappied and mis-
printed, are only calculated TO mislead and mis-
lily, al has doubtless been The case with The
Whie IS we'll as many OF its readers.
But :onceding, as we do, that The Wing has
been uislcd as to its extracts from Mr.. Madi-
sons emarks, we must confess ourselves al
,reat l.s 10 account for Tie fact, that, in lis d.
lioen, sarch for "proofs from The record" solely
10 ,syiniicate The truth Of history" the Wing has
ouotedfrom this debate every syllable, we be-
Iieye attributed 10 Mr.. Madison, which tended,
sven If sound 10 commit him 10 The protective
policy, taking its quotations to", only from his
remark, on pz,li:ular at,clss while il has en-
,irely ,7erlouked Mr.. Madisons speeches on The
genera question: presented, and not even referred
Ia single remark OF his as opposed 10 the pro
rec,ive policy though n this very debate, his
oojnien 10 that effect is expressed in terms as
clear ard un,uislakab they are strong and
conclusive. Wecan only account for this lact,
by srpposing tina. the writer in the Wing had
M more READ this debate than he had read "Mr.
smirIs Speech" and that he had never even
seen the whole OF that part OF j! which gives
wha, MIR. Madison said; but relied on some
book OF extracts, probably "NiIes' Register,
wbich was Tor some time crowded with misquo-
,a,ions on this subject, though we do not know
that / contains those precisely which are made
by tie Wing. We had intended in this "chap
ter" to give Nr Madison's opinions of the poll
cy Of protection, as really expressed in this de.
bate in 1899; from which it will appear, beyond
all doubt, tina. he was opposed TO the policy
even as It was then considered solely as nciden
,al to the raising Of revenue; for, as we think
we have shown, no ons then advocated protec
ton as substantive object, and not an incident
10 revenue, or contemplated Protective Tariff
system as governmental policy. But we have
already made our "chapter" longer than we in
tended, and must defer our extracts to another
| espec ally as we desire to make thsm as fu il a.