Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-01-05
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
Mr.. SECRETARY MEREDrrH's REPORT.

from oHerlng some thoughts upon IL, more eSpe-
cally on those parts regarding the Tariff. do not
know very well how to compare this document
with those which emanated from that Department
in our early history, but it seems to me that Mr..
MEREDITH has put the nation back on its own
proper ground where it has not been for the last
twenty years, and where, indeed, doubt if it was
well put in this case thanks 10 the lights of
our experience, good and bad For lack of the same
amount of experience it was impossible for any man
TO have done SO well thirty forty years ago; and
none but man Of profound and comprehensive
views, Of high and noble purpose, and, am dis
posed to add of great honesty, growing of love
of country, could have produced this report. 1t is,
in my opinion, masterpiece of the kind.
Mr. MEREDITHs reasoning on the subject of the
tariff is almost, if not quite, unrivaed for its clear
and force. 1t is this part of his report par-
ticulary on which desire to make some remarks.
The manner in which he asserts the power of Con-
gress over this subject is peculiarly felicous, and.
one would think, irresistibly convincing. 1t is a
curious fact that such argument should be re-
quired. But it is the extent of power which has
been drawn in question, as also the specific purpose
OF its application. ..".
The late Secretary of the Treasury maintained
that revenue was the only lawful object of mposs.
Since imposts are necessary for revenue, and, as
all admit so far constitutional, Mr.. Meredith very
justly and forcibly suggests that, in thus obtaining
revenue, the interests OF the people should be con-
sidered, /" not as little, but as much as possible"
There could not be more simple, more forcible
thought than this and the beauty of it is, that it
covers the whole ground of tariff policy. 1t
would be wanton mischief, cruelty, and oppression
TO reject this principle.
1t is not question: says Mr.. Meredith, /" of
assuming power not expressly granted by the con-
stitution on the ground that it may tend gene
raj end not therein expressed" II ne s'agit pas
aiaSi. 1t is refreshing to have so pertinent
thought expressed in SO few words. The power
is granted, denying it and surely it cannot
be question, whether the application of it shall
effect the greatest possible good surely no one
would quarrel with such an application. With
equal simplicity and force Mr.. Meredith adds 9 1t
seems to me that to exercise these or any other
powers, with any other view, would be misuse
of power, and subversive of the Legitimate end oil
government" ~
None can fail to see, that to claim that the con-
stitution intended revenue tariff exclusively, is
constructive rule, and one that was not even in
vented till quite recently. And it is forced con-
structon. Surely they who employ construction
for such purpose cannot very consistently oppose
construction for any other desirable object. But
the power to lay duties being expressly given, the
object OF protection is mere use of given power
at discretion the as for revenue neither OBJ
ject being specified in the constitution. There
must be some object objects in particular, else it
would be going it blind. The objects, whatever
they be, are discretionary application of given
power If the power is employed, it is not posi-
BILE to stop short of this. But to say that the con-
sttuton authorizes revenue protective tariff SOLE
iy, is forced construction. The whole truth on |
this point expressed by Mr.. Meredith as follows
!" The express grant of power to Congress
gives to that body the right of exercising that power
in s,ph M ia ts bo
ducive to the advantage Of the country" The
manner and object of the application of such a |
power are always and necessarily discretionary /; so
also whether it shall be used at all. There are |
believe, some express powers in the constitution
which have never been used. II would be absurd
10 suppose that the precise purpose of their appca.
ton could have been specified when that instrument
was framed. No power but that of Omniscience
could have done that.
The instances of the exercise of the power of re-
gulating commerce, specified by Mr.. Meredith, |
in the history Of our Government are exceedingly
pertinent, and not less unanswerable, as they bear
on this question.
Mr.. Meredith has demonstrated very rare power
of simplifying and condensing an.argument, as for
example: /" Nothing can be more destructive to the
true interests of the country than legislation to favor
particular class to the prejudice Of others, ercept
the refusal of really sautary legislation under an
erroneous impression that 1t might favor class
TO the prejudice of others, Uhen II, fact the denial
of it Injuries all classes and benefits nobody."
There was, perhaps, never given more compre-
hensive historical description than what follows after
the word except in the above sentence, and no one
will be at a loss how TO apply it. Without any
pretension OF an argument it yet involves one OF
most comprehensive scope and of amazing force.
So also the following: g AS every producer in
one branch of useful industry is also consumer of
the products Of others, and his ability to consume
depends upon the profits of his production it fol-
lows that to give prosperity to branch of indus
try is to increase that of the rest Let any one
think Of this, and tell where this increasing that
of the rest should stop for the mutual benefit of
all, or what measure of prosperity with any one
can injure that of any other
Again: within each branch of industry there
must be individual rivalry; but among the several
branches OF useful industry there must always ex-
ist an unbroken harmony of Interest," This is
not only an argument on two great points, but it
Is beautiful in its structure. The first point in
wolves an exhibition of that system of competition
which, in any branch of protected industry, secures
and protects the interests Of consumers of its pro-
ducts, by keeping down and even lowering their
prices which is the usual effect of protective sys-
tenn, as is proved in Mr.. Colton's work on Public
Economy, and which Mr.. Meredith, as we shall
see, also maintains. The second point is the mu-
tual dependence Of the different branches of indus
try, and the reciprocal benefit which their mutual
prosperity necessarily confers. This is more OBJ
vious than the first, but the first is no less true.