Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1857-02-25


Az an act of courtesy towards our efficient
Representative in Congress, Mr.. Letcher, pub
lsh his speech on the Tariff, delivered on the 9th
inst Mr.. Letcher of course takes the Democratic
view of the subject, but with due respect We think
he has entirely fails to prove that discrimination
for protection is not just and proper. Indeed upon
this point he hardly attempts to make an areu'
ment but contents himself with asserting the
oft repeated and oft refuted dogma that protec-
tive tariffs ''rob the majority for the purpose OF
placing money in the pockets Of the minority
In opposition 10 Mr. Letcher's views we might
refer to the we'll known antecedents OF the
President elect and, by the way, 1t is matter
Of regret that 50 faithful Democratas Mr.. Leteh-
or should so soon be compelled to take ground
AGAINST the head OF his party. What Mr.. bueh-
anaps sentiments are at this time may be INFER
red from the resolutions recently adopted oy the
Democratic Legislature of Peunsyr'"ni" III oI-
position to a reduction of the duty on iron. In
addition TO this we have the earnest protests OF
the New York Sun and Philadelphia Pennsylva-
MAN, both Buchanan papers and leading organs
of the Northern Democracy. Throughout the
Middle States, in fact, the Democracy are quite
Jealous in their advocacy of protection, and dit
fer radically from their Southern brethren.-~
But even in the South Democratic opposition to
protective tariffs seems to be yielding, wherev-
or there is a particular local product or branch
of industry to be cherished. Thus in Louisiana
the planter demands high duty on sugar as
urgently as Massachusetts, men formerly called
for it on cotton goods or the Pennsylvania Of
the present day invokes Congress to protect the
iron interest.
3ut,.after all, when Mr.. Letcher comes to the
gist of the matter there is very little practical
difference between him and the advocates OF
protection. lie admits that lin the adjustment
of the tariff for raising the requisite amount OF
revenue, it is utterly impossible so to arrange it
as to avoid incidental protection" Incidental
protection" is all that is desired by any ONE
No one wishes to raise dollar more OF revenue
than is necessary for the wants OF the Govern
ment; but while some insist that it is unjust
and unconstitutional to discriminate, others con-
tend that the best interests of the country re-
quire it. Mr. Letcher belongs to the former class,
and although he says there must and will be
protection, whether or no, he prefers to leave 1t
10 blind chance. and would let the protection
fall iniuriously rather than exercise little in
tellirent discrimination. The burden Of his
complaint, however, is, that the new tariff bill,
now under discussion in Congress, is unjust IN
its Discrimination protecting iron, and leav-
ING sugar to shift for itself. This Of course
ought not to be.
On the whole Mr. Letcher eyinceS spirit OF
compromise aud patriotism highly creditable
to him, and that portion of his speech IN which
he exhorts to mutual concessions and the Guilt
walton of kindly feelings between the various
sections of the country, is worthy of all praise.
1t is generally admitted that the present Ia
riff needs revision An enormous amount OF sur
plus revenue is already accumulated in the
Treasury, and by the 30th of June next it Will
reach the sum of $22, 900! The withdraw
al of so large an amount of specie from clrcula'
ton, is serious evil, and, as MIR. Letcher
shows, threatens lis with an alarming CONNER
cial convulsion IL is absolutely necessary ITO
reduce the revenue, to deplete the Treasury, and
to restore to the business of the country that
specie which is now locked up in the Govern
ment vaults" To accomplish this object, be-
sides the enactment OF new tariff law, we
know of no better plan than that which 1T Is
said Mr.. Campbell, of Ohio, will probably pro-
pose-to deposite the money with the different
States in the proportion of$75,00O to each Rep
reseutative in Congress. By this operation Vir-
ci ia would receive S965,000-a pretty round
sum, which would be great assistance to the
old Commonwealth at this particular juncture.
And we can anticipate no objections on the part
of our estates Rights" politicians. 1t would
not be gift, bnt loan in consideration OF the
confidence repoSed in our honesty and ability to
refund. Thus our State pride would be fatter-
ed, and while we could Oy no manner of means,
be induced to accept aims from the Federal
Government, we might consent to accommodate
Uncle Sam so far as to keep his money for him,
all be it every body knows he would never ask
for it again.