The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-05

We have examined that portion OF Mr.. Corwin's re-
port which refers directly the expenditures Of the gov
eminent; but yet have considered that portion
of the document which advocates return to protective
duties Our New York correspondent has exposed many
of Mr. Corwins arguments this point; but yet there
matters which, think, should not be passed
over without special reutation. ,#
Mr. Corwin first sets forth the liabilities of the govern
ment and he advocates return to the protective system
for the purpose OF raising adequate to meet
those liabilities He that The primary object 10 be
kept IN visw IN leuyng duties imports admitted be
reuenue" He then adds: III equally tOs establish
cd The policy and duty Of the government SO 10
discriminate IN the uying of duties s0out falling
beow tie necessary amount of rsusnus 10 glue the greatest
encouragement possible to all the Industrial pursuits Of our
ows people" We hold that the only object recognised by
the constitution for levying duties imports is produce
to be used pay the debts and provide for the
common defence and general welfare The government
has no authority under the constitution 10 levy duties for
any other purpose adopt any other than the
principle guide in the formation of tariff of duties
least Of all has it the right adopt principle which
s nits very nature hostile revenue 1t is the ru
constitutional duty OF the government to ascertain,
well may be, the amount OF duty which will
yield the greatest amount OF That amount of
duty is the maximum under the constitution; and the
duty should be reduced below that maximum far the
necessities Of the government will permit Duties how
moderate tend to raise the price, and must operate
check impotations and to that extent they a-
ford protection to the American manufacturer We are
not unwilling that they enjoy the benefit Of such nciden
tai protection, in view of the many convenences OF the
SYSTEM although it asserted clear and estab
iished principle by Mr.. Hamilton. when he urging
the adoption of the constitution, that justice would
quire that an import duty any article should be met
bya countervailng excise tax the domestic produc-
ton, that the domestic producer might bear his just
share of the burdens OF government.
Entertaining these views, and believing do, that
they entertained by large majority of the American
people. cannot agree with MIR. Corwin when he says
il is well established the policy and duty Of the
government to discriminate in levyng duties as, with
outang below the necessary amount OF revenue, togve
the greatest encouragement possible 10 all the industrial
pursuits Of our people. Mr.. Corwin has admitted that
is the pria' object yet here he contends that
the principle should only be recognised to
which would prevent prohibory duties from being
carried point that would far check mporations
make the revenue inadequate. In other words,
he admits that is the primary object. while he
contends that protection should alone be considered in
evyins duties, other attention being practically paid
to4evenue than the necessities of the government may
peousy require He contends that for purposes Of protec-
ton the highest duties should be levied which will permit
sufficient imports provide We contend, and
majority of the American people contend, that the
sution, due regard to justice, and true principles OF
national economy all conspire in demanding that the
oea duties shall be levied which will yield fund ade
qHate to the wants OF the government economically adj
We have commented on Mr.. Corwin's language &C
cording to its real practical signifcaton. He does not
say that discriminating duties should be for the
benefit Of manufacturers, but 80 gps the grestes
agemsnt possible to al he industrial pursuits of
people" Discriminating duties of a protective
character cannot be made to give encouragement
all the industrial pursuits Of people The custom
house regulations can give encouragement or protec
lion to those who are engaged lng the soil and pro-
dueinx our great staples. Import duties give
coaragement 10 the great labor interest Of America but
they give encouragement in the shape Of dispropor
tomato profits and in tue shape OF partial OF total ex-
emphon from the burdens of government 10 money and
manufacturing capital The greatest and indeed the only
method OF encouraging all branches OF industry is for
ne government to abstain from attempts to protect any
PoUtCutn psS"Ceos Ny huu 10
allow commerce TO be free az the necessities OF the
government will permit Then labor, which is at
the foundation Of national wealth and national worth
VIII receive its just reward and enjoy its due
share of the national production. The privileges
which have been given in Europe by class legs-,
la,on to the holders of have produced in
the progress Of time, mountain Of wrong which the
duest eyes must and has given to the question of
the organization of labor most fearful aspect Let Ms
profit by the lesson. ati.a
We will not stop to comment on Mr. Corwin's views
relative to the ALLEGED defects in the ad ualortm sys.
tenn II has not been long since we considered
this point; and since our article on the subject,
our able New York correspondent has left us moth
ing further to urge in that behalf. except call at
'en,on TO one OF Mr. Corwin's curious statements He
represents that duties under the dd paiorem system
hucuae--that they are high when imports are high,
and low when imports low. Mr., Corwin pretends
TO think that this operates a hardship on the con-
sumer He says: " That cannot be wholesome system
Of taxation which follows the in his purchases
increasing his burden when prices high. and taking
of prices fall, and his ability bear incrsases
Here Mr. Corwin pretends TO be the friend OF the
sumer not the producer Of articles subject duty This
reminds us Of maxim which il ia unnecessary to re-
peat as il must 10 any who sees protection
s' manifestng tender socude for the welfare Of the