The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-07-26

THE following sucCinct history Of taEin
Legislation in the United states We find in
the Philadelphia Record:
During the first session Of Congress I'M
der the Constitution o law was passed in
which the principle Of o protective tariff
WaS recognized by declaring 1t to be "nec'
essaFy for the support Of government Tor
the discharge Of the deblR oil the United
States and the encouragement Of manu-
taetuHes that duties be laid ON goods, wares
and merchandise imported" HGmtlton's
report on the subject, made after this law
was passed, Is regarded by free traders Us
most Cunnipgly devised, and by protec'
~tiopisls 30 containing arguments never
answered. The tariff, however, which Il
supported was one Tor revenue, with Incl
dental profession.
In his seventh annual message, in 1915,
MI. Madison urged upon Congress q re-
vision OF the tariff, and gave reasons why
home industry should be protected. Com
RreSs, pursuant TO the recommendation,
enacted q protective tarih.
ProtectionhRd hitherto been secondary,
now II was OF primary Importance. The
law was as popular in the South as In any
other section Of the Union, In view OF the
heavy duties upon raw cotton which Great
Britain impoEed Of that time, The bill
Was opposed by the Fsdsralista. The Re-
publicGnH, to strengthen their position -
support Of the RCL rekubIShed HsmIl'
tons report. Since the dSySo Of Hamilton
the parties had exchanged positions on
the tariff question. The measure OF this
time was defended by Clay, Calhoun and
LoWndes, while Webster and Randolph
we're arrGyed against 1t.
,A.bill for reViVing the tariff was passed
DUNG the first session OF the Eighteenth
Congress, The vote showed that since
1873, political changessh mad been made on
the question. AT that time the Southern
States voted for q protective tariff; now
they voted against Il, The navigating and
Plating States opposed the bill, the form
et thinking 1t would be Injurious to com
MERGE, the latter to agriculture, The gram
growing States favored taritt, in the belief
that Il would benefit agriculture. The
question wal superior TO VII others during
the session. Clay was champion OF the
protective system and Webster Of Ito OPP
nohiIionl1Al fiul u .N".7H 7H
Ths duties according tothe tariff Of 1924
| were id vAlofem. Importers would in.
voice their goods below their real value,
and thus deiIaud the revenue, 10 rem
edy this the tariff was amended ip 1928.
Debate on the" question continued tor
more than two months, and CteRted great
Sxcilementboth 10 and out Of Congrebb.
10 South O4rolipG the measure EsH 9de'
nOunced In the strongest leIms. Her Gu
SehS petitionsd the Legislature 10 save
them from the gflSp OF usurpation sud
POVERTY oCcGsloned by such q law! Dan
Iiel Webster and other prominent staLeS-
men, who had Ihitsrto opposed q protect.
i've tariff, now became It's advocates. .N
o The tariff OF 1882 provided fora dlmin'
Iishedi rate per cent on imports aud q con-
siderable reduction Of the revenuei but,
being an Endorsement ot'lhe protective
system, 1t met with opposition from the
free traders' Of South Carolina; and did
not effect the Cancellation expected oil II.
The tariff oi1S33 was y compromise
measure, brought forward by Mr.. Clay 10
prevent the destruction NJ the tAriH policy,
10 avert civil war and 10 restore peace to
the country. IT provided tSr tie gradual
reduction Of duties ill June, l842, and put
10 rest the BpirIt Of nulllhCatiom
lnlS46, alter repeating the tariff Of 1872,
0 law wa enacted providing for q ltAtitt
for the purpose Of revenue only! aThe
Democratic party rejected the principle Of
protection III their Legislation on this sub,
ject. .''''"
The depressed condition OF business wau
thought to REQUIRE q reViA!oh Of the tariff