The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1855-04-11
For he ssnansl.
Free rrade VS. Tariff for Revenue.

Mr.. Hart: In the same debate upon the
Tariff in which the gentleman from South
Carolina and Maine participated, the new
Senator from Massachusetts,, GENERAL VIII
SON, took part. He claimed no longer
protection for the manufacturers OF his
State-and avowed himself in favor OF direct
taxation; and members representing the
iron interests of Pennsylvania, complained
that Massachusetts, should take such stand
before the country. Does not this fact look
like securing yet TO the people of the Unit
ed State plain and unostentAtious govern
ment?- a54 -
But another demonstration has been re-
Gently made in this direction from another
quarter. l confess that it is not best to
place to much confidence in il, until further
developments are made. Yet it is encour-
aging to see correct notions Of government
growing up among the clergy. The New
York Independent, new paper of large
circulation, and edited BY leading clergymen
of the United States, is understood lately
10 take the same ground occupied by the
gentlemen referred to in this, and the arti-
Gle of last week.
There is danger, unless the democratic
party wake up, that the Wing party will
yet take the lead in establishing that sys-
tenn of political economy, which not only
becomes, but which alone will perpetuate
republican institutions.
:, hope again never to see Democratic
convention resolve as did the democratic
convention of Lake County last tall. Their
resolution is not at hand, but its substance
IS we'll remembered. "Resolved, that we
are in favor of direct taxation to support
) the general government, just as soon as the
people of the United States are ready for
it," Great political reformers these, sure
ly!! ...
And now, Mr. Hart, one brief sentence,
and will not trouble yourself or readers
any further. 1t may be in advance-it may
be heresy. But the modern democratic doc
trine of "tarif for reuenue' is more obnox
o ious, and hostile, to republican Legislation
n than "tariff for protection" The mode o
i collection is the same in both, and thus fal
II both are equally wrong-bm the former aEs'
i Il tcads directly to corrupt the government
:. Protection and prohibtory laws have been
Is and will be, necessary to some extent. Bu
W these should not, and do not, necesSaril.
: ! involve the government in unjust, unguarded
% % and corrupt legislation. For this opinion
to am willing to be accommodated, if tn
ir party chooses to do SO. l shall not now at
lie tempt more fully to explain the doctrine
IN Stree trade and direct taxation" have al
=. ways been coupled together by friends an
foes. Yet there never has been any absc
o lutte political necessity for it. There is n
- good reason why our government shoul
ever have been contaminated by revenue
10 drawn from the people deceptively, an
80 through system of legislation, which th
u Head of the Exchequer of England, M
%. GLADSTONE, condemns as against good pol
o. cy and good morals. He assures the peop
,o Of England that though the war should col
- tnue, he does not think the governme
,.l will ever again increase the revenue recei
N ed from customs. ....
70, The people of the United States thoug
,ho would be willing to do much for their ov
-, manufacturing establishments, in any a
~ every way, provided, the government wou
,u. only let them know precisely how mu
they wanted, and what kind of establis
ments deserved donations, and encourae
49,. ment And if prohibition, or tariffs in
- cases are, or should be necessary let the
orc exist, and directly for the benefit OF The ma
utacturerS HemSelueS-and not for tbe BEN
lad of the public treasury.
s Such laws may be necessary until "trad
-. RECEIVERS from the effects of fettered leg
Via lation. propose small but import,
amendment to the old text, and would hi
it read, Equal and free trade, and dir
e. taxation" ,.'
Yours VERGINAUD