Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-03-23

years were as fOlloWS:
1s43, $3,223,55o 1917, $4Os2,52S |
1874 2,S9S,7S0 1S4S 5,T18,205 |
1915, 4,327,928 1S49, 4,933, 1919 |
1916, 3,545, 4S1 1850, 4,734, 424
Showing that the manufacturers of cotton have
not only been sustained, but have actually exported
large amount of their products, which they have
asked to have protected here, bringing them in COM
petition with similar fabrics of other nations, with
out protection and that these exports have largely
increased during the tariff of 1916 over what they
were during the tariff of 1912, when they had high
protection.
Let us again try it as to iron, which is now the
principal article clamoring for protection:
Exports of domestic iron.
1S43, 1926 1S47 $l,167,4s4
1874, 1852 1S4S 1,259,652
1916, S45,Ol7 1919, 1896 l72
1916, 1,15l,7S 1850 1,911 1920
Again. sir the total manufactures of pig iron, iron
castings, and wrought iron, and manufactures of
wrought iron, were, in the year $780, $4,000, 1862;
in 1850, $780, 49, 653, an increase of over S30OOO,-
900 in ten years. and in the year 1885, $7S 4O6 53S,
an increase of nearly $lS,OOO,000 in five years.
And yet, sir, are to be told that, without the
bounty and protection of the Government the iron
interest cannot survive.
Having learned thus much with regard to the past,
let us still further consider some of the objections,
prley of again resortng TO protection for the sake
Of protection As | have already intimated, this
system demands of the Government bounty or
premium for the support of the protected classes,
which, as humby conceive, is in direct violation
of the spirit of the Constitution, and totally at
with the great objects for which the Federal Union
established. If we can levy indirect tax for
any such purpose, without regard to the revenues
which may be necessary to support the Govern
why hon ynev not aEa fhn
thus collected and distribute them among all classes
Of our citizens in specific sums and for any specified
object; and if we can do this, why may VIC not go
step further, and lay direct taxes upon the people,
in order that may have the privilege Of scattering
it promiscuousy among them, or of paying over to
such as We may deem most meritorious.
Now, sir, take it that no man can be found who
will dare assert that Congress has the power to use
the revenues, whether collected by direct taxation
or by impostS, for any such purpose Where, then,
is the distinction? In what does it consist? 1t is
true that the bounty, or premium, secured to the
manufacturers does not 60 into the Treasury but
it is nevertheless, paid, and must operate as tax
upon the consumer. To afford this protection, the
importatons of foreign goods prohibited, except
at duty that will enhance the price of the for
eign article not only to enable the home manufac-
turc to compete with it, but to realize therefrom
large profits. The consumer, who might have OBJ
tanned the foreign article with low duties at great
y reduced price, is thus forced to purchase it at the
price enhanced by the higher duties and thus &C
tually to pay into the pockets of the manufacturer
tax, ay, sir, tax, which could be rightfully and
constitutonaly levied for no purpose save the ex-
penses of the Government, economically admins
tered.
TO illustrate this, We will suppose cargo of cot
ton goods brought from a foreign port, which the
importer without any duty could afford to sell at
twenty cents per yard duty Of five cents per yard
is levied and collected; this of course will increase
the price of the goods to twenty-five cents per yard
the manufacturer of the home article being thus
bled to demand and receive for his goods the same
price, and having no duty to pay, of course in add
ton to the profits that the article at twenty cents
per yard would have afforded, puts into his pockets
also the five cents duty which the importer has to
pay to the Government. In order to show to what
extent this system may be carried, l will here read
an extract from the report of the Secretary of the
Treasury, under MIR. Polk, which may add, is but
another evidence of the gross injustice and intolera
BILE burdens of the tariff of 1912:
"At least twothirds of the present tariff (of 1S42)
are paid not into the Treasury but to the protected
classes. The revenue from imports last year eXcee-
ded $27 100000 This, in ITSELF is heavy burden :;
but the whole tax imposed upon the people by the
present tariff is not less than $S1 100000 of which
$27,OOO,OoO are paid into the Treasury upon the
imports and $54 100000 to the protected classes in
enhanced prices Of similar domestic articles"
Then, sir, it is not only tax, but heavy tax,
that the consumer is forced to pay, not into the
| Treasury for the support of the Government but
into the pockets of manufacturers. 1t is imposed
and regulated by law just as direct tax would be
it is collected just as the revenue in the Treas
ury has been and the only difference between them
is that one is paid to the protected Glass; the other
to the Government. And then the question arises,
if the one is paid why may not the other be used
in the same way, or for any other purpose? l con-
tess my inability, sir to draw the distinction. But
1t may be said that these arguments would ap-
ply to any duty, for all, to some extent protect
answer that one is for the purpose of revenue and
therefore legitimate the other for protection with
out regard to revenue and therefore unconsttution
all and if in any event, by the impost system, tax
paid by the consumer to the manufacturer surely
AUST Government will not increase the burden be.
yond what is absolutely required for Government
purposes.
Now, sir, who are the principal contributors to
such gigantic annuties extorted by legislative force
and paid to the northern manufacturers? We Of
the South and West and the agricultural interest Of
the North Agriculture is emphatically the great
business o. our people, it is the prime source Of
wealth and power as nation. Our cotton is the
great motive power of trade; it is the king of com
merce and manufactures; it is the currency of ma
tions always in demand, always redeemable in
silver, gold, or what you will. We ask for it anc
our other products no protection; we but ask to bt
let alone Yet sir, this great interest of the people
is to be fettered and burdened to build up much
smaller one, and which is principally confined to on,
section thus repudiatng the principle of the great
est good to the greatest NUMBER or that still NOR
important principle Of equal and exact justice to all
Is this, sir, right? Is tjust2 Will not such pol
ICY, in the future in the past meet with the in
'dlgnant rebuke of the American people, nvolvin,
the party that dares advocate it in retrevable dis
solution and runP
But sir, it is contended by some of the NOR
Jealous of the protectionists with more zeal tina,
discretion, that the duty does not enhance the prc
of the article. Need this be answeredp Is It no
absurd upon its faceP May it not be said, in fu
answer to such assertion, that if this be 50, the
there can be no protection, and as consequence
the manufacturer derive no benefit from it P
. Why, then, this continual clamor for high duties