New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-02-21
Democratic party of the Union (since every
representative of that party voted for IL VINO
% olN IN fb,a swaaninD rrODOsltlOn:

Of rereaue on hat article"
MIR. Marshall, though not an old man, can
not well be ignorant that this is precisely
o,nosite 70 the doctrine of Washington, Ham
iton jefferson, Madison, and nearly all the
| great men who founded our Republc-that the
very first Tariff bill passed under our Federal
Constitution expressly declared in It's preamble
that it was required for Protection as well as
Revenue--and that many of the statesmen VINO
nodded and passed that act were fresh from
the labor of framing that Constitution. We
respectfully submit that they probably knew
what that Constitution did or did not authorize
unite rs well as Mr.. Marshall knows. Has he
ever considered Mr. Madson's argument, which
runs thus:
1. The States certainly did possess the power
TO foster their own industrial interests by
Tariff legislation;
9. They lost or surrendered that power by
ratifying the Federal Constitution;
3. If it be not now vested i'll Congress, ~here
is h2
We once had" Tariff for Revenue exclu-
"sively." BY the operation OF the compromise
act of 1888, one-tenth of all excess over twenty
per cent. ad valOrem was deducted annually
from every existing duty, so thats when MI
Van Buren became President (March 4, 1877
the Tariff had been half shOrn of its Protcc-
tive features, which were still Clipped away
annually, sunti they had all but disappeared
when he was RENTED evermOre to private
life March A. 1S41.) Mr.. Van Buren, had no
National Debt to pay, whether principal or IN
I.terest his term was one of peace; and he was
essentially frugal, careful public servant, who
never stole dime, and did not allow his sub
ordinates to steal when he could help it. And
vet he left the Treasury empty, the Revenue
inadequate, and the Public Credit at so low an
ebb that the succeeding Administration could
borrow the bare Twelve Millions needed to
keep the Government afloat neither abroad nor
at home We went back to Protection, in the
Summer of 1912, under an antl-Protectlye Pres
dent, because q Revenue Tariff did not afford
the revenue needed to carry on the Govern
ment when its entire outgOes were less thah
Twenty Millions per annum. II there be
those who think low, non-Protectve duties
conducive to general prosperity, will they tell
us how Mr.. Van Buren, came to be turned out
at the close Of his first term by the most
overwhelming verdict ever passed upon any
Administration, and this given purely on fiscal
and economic groundsP We do not say that
Gen. Harrison was elected distinctly as Pro-
tectionist, though such he was well known to
be: We do say that, if low revenue duties
could have made the country prosperous, Mr..
Van Buren, could not thus have been beaten
He was turned out mainly because the country
was deeply dissatisfied with its industrial and
financial condition, and was convinced that
change at headquarters might improve that
,..,l~.
In 1923, the party to which the country Is
indebted for Mr. Marshall had the House OF
Representatives and was about to elect Gen.
Jackson President and John c. Calhoun Vice
President by a coalition of the Jackson, Craw-
ford and Calhoun factions Cor fractlons) OF
1924 The cotton growing and slaye-breedlng
interest formed the basis of that coalition and
was intensely hostile To Protection. Yet the
jackson leaders in the Free states dld
not then venture to take the ground
now taken by Mr.. Marshall. but voted
Wan Buren,, Silas Wright, Michael Hoffman,
James Buchanan, &c, among them, along
with Thomas ii. Benton, John ii. Eaton
Richard NJ. Johnson, and every other Jack
sonian from kentucky for the most Protec-
tive Tariff We have ever had. We know no
reason for asserting that one of those above
named was n PrOtectOnist in principle: they
voted for the Tariff of 1923 because the pOpu-
lar discussion which had been carried on
throughout the preceding twelve years had so
enlightened the Free Labor interest that it
would have beaten them in the pending cleo
ton if they had done otherwise. New-lork
and PENNSYLVANIA were then Jackson States;
vet the former gave 81 votes for Protection to
-bi tba Loft
Kentucky had a Jackson delegation in the
House; but it voted solid for Protection, as did
the jackson men from Ohio and Indiana.
All we ask of the anti-Protectionists in Con-
gress is Just this Vote as you reSolre Frame
| a bill based on the principle you have above
asserted at the instance of MIR. Marshall, PIT 1t
against Gen. Schenck's, and, whatever the inn
mediate result, let us 90 to the country on
clear issue of principle. We loathe petty Issues
| of detail-wrangles about the price OF this or
that article at q particular date, or as to the
propriety of adding a cent to the duty Oh Coffee
or takingfv cents per bushel of the duty on Salt
Such disputes tend to weary and disgust the
| popular mind with economic controversies.
But give us n bill based on the principle
enunciated by Mr.. Marshall, and we have an
| issue fit to command the attention of great
people. We believe the passage of such a bill
would throw Half Million Democratic artisans
and laborers out of employment, and compel
much larger number to accept far lower wages
than they are now earning. We should there
upon have no difficulty in bringing the Tariff
issue home to theIbusiness and bosoms of the
masses.
There is one radical difference between us
and our opponents which the public cannot help