The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-07-19
STATE PROTECTION.
Your Question Answered.

/ July 9TH you ask, shut what IS to protet
V the infant manufactures of the South, fron
the competition Of the New England estat
lishments p Let me answer your questio
t IN your columns. where you will hav
: ample scope to critieise what / advance
There being no such actual entity as "th
South"-I apologize for presuming to recti
/. fy anything written by you-let eacl
: Southern State, by its own legislation, pro
? tect the industry of its own people. Peopl
talk about inter-state commerce mot a consti
tutional term, By the way; but doubles
s alluding to sec. 5, art. /, giving Congress
, power TO regulate commerce among th,
States - as if protection was the result o
compact between States. Not so +; history
shows that States adopt protective laws
+ er Troprlo naotu, ec PropTio rigore by an
inherent, God-given right and power, not
dependent on the will of others, and the
exercise Of this right never has been re-
garded as against comfy, or any ground ol
offence. [ challenge any person to show
that these States ever surrendered this
right OF course, in asserting this right.
and in performing this duty, for | must re-
specttuIly urge that it is a sacred dtttg, too
long neglected by those who govern or have
governed, each State must follow methods
not offensive to the Constitution. Let the
State adopt legislation which will regulate
the sale or use cf articles, within our State
limits, by proper disability tax. This
i viii restrict the ingress of outside, com
petitiye articles; and perform the uery
office and produce the very effects of impost
laws. The damaging effects of outside arti-
cles, on our industry, either ''infant,n or
| only desired, is in their sale or use, by the
merchant, or by one who brings them across
the State line; or has them brought, in
mail bags, saddle bags, or what not To
| obstruct the sale or use, by tax, is to OBJ
struct the entry to produce restriction on
! the entry, the essential ingredient of the
| impost law The effects must be the same
as those from impOst laws, as to revenue
and as to protection. The courts concede
that State, in arranging tax laws, may
discriminate in favor of its own industry.
This plan, | submit, avoids all objections on
the score of interstate commerce the great
difficulty which has been brought up, when
have insisted on State protection. The
error think, has grown out Of the idea,
that protection could not arise, except by
compact between this State and that State |
in which an article was produced. This is |
certainly a mistake. Such legislation as |
suggest would only affect persons inside our |
State, who, being protected by our laws, |
must obey them, and conform to our policy, |
or leave the State. The things affected |
would be also within the State. And the
jurisdiction of the State over her own in
ternal concerns, could not be disputed.
Could tue producer of taxed article, in
another State, complain Of such legislation
Certainly not-his interest would be too
remote to be appreciable Would the sell
Ter complain of legislation intended to build
bo hal |
policy intended to maze his customers able
to pay him Hardly-public sentiment
would put him in coventry which would
soon reconcile him Would you, or |, or
the average citizen, object on account of
the temporary, shortlived inconvenience or
sacrifice involved, in view of the rich and
lasting results speedily to follow? Because,
the tax added on, the price will be enhanced,
the inevitable effect of which, will be to
encourage and foster home industry =?
Surely not, no more than a sensible man,
who has poison in his stomach, will object
TO Y0mit, because it will strain him. Bet
ter a heaye Or two than death outright.
Reason would tell us, that it is better to :
give few cents more for a home made ar !
ticle, and thus keep money at home, which
in some form will get back to US perhaps >
the next hour than buy an outside article :
for few cents less, and send our money to
another State, and another tax jurisdiction, '
never to get back to US; yet We often do
he latter, thinking we are exercising the .
glorious privilege of "buying where we can
BUY cheapest" If therefore, this legislation
lid no more than to furnish medium by :
which to correct this "penny wise and :
)ound foolish policy" it would in my view +
,e invaluable. But it would stay, and =
top the flood of outside articles, which Y
orces our labor into one channel, cotton, n
nd makes its production Improbable.
)ur own farmers and mechanics would gain .
he production of those articles which we {
ow buy, and the proceeds of cotton would n
10 longer leave the State those who mus
i've by the needle, would be no longer
taryed by ready made clothing. l will not
axe space however, to enlarge on the bene-
is OF the protective principle,
Can you mention a single argument,
'hich would on grounds of reason and jus
ce, give this power to France or Brazil, N
-c., which would not equally give it to n,
ny State which needs it. They pay sep sa
rate taxes; they support religions educa- IL
onal, and other systems and we do the ST
Ime, and our burdens are just as onerous,
,cordng to population. New England, by
hich seeks defence against foreign compe- te
ton, cannot complain of us for seeking D
efence against that same competition in Sc
ew England Tor other) hands, brought to
J, an inland people; or against the fruits ad
that protection they wish continued.
e too wish to become selfsustaining, in
I'd to give variety and diversity to our of
Dor, condition which every tax paying tiC
ople has a right to enjoy. The plan is not da
exhibition of spite or spleen against sci
ose whose productions we tax out; all are We
aced on the same footing. The plan
lows no distinction between New Eng of
nd and New Orleans shirt the entry Nj
either prevents the working lady here th
I'M making a living. Having gotten be- col
nd. by and through abnormal circum-
lnces, we are not willing to remain so We
ways; and we adopt the only means in our Su
wer to catch up. / do not believe that ty
r Judiciary will refuse to uphold State (th
Otective system, the sole intention of at
Itch is to make us independent and self ,
pporting. gal
am aware that the idea of State protee>
n is new, but am willing to bear all Ru
; reproach or ridicule which may attach
its advocacy. In the execution of this
n, persons will have to be put under Nc
hs and penalties, as in other eases; arti- ]
s may required to be labelled or stamped; Du
that is detail, which I do not enter upon, ]
but respectfully insist that l have an-f
cred your question, though have had to the
,e more space than desired But it is rio
easy to present such subject in few hir
rds. was glad to read your question, est.
,ause it gave me good opening to pre- the
It plan to you, which have suggested are
two Governors of Mississippi. If you Jas
objections, on principle, to the policy an6
icated, please state them, perhaps / can sec
1oye them. Or, the discussion of even 9TH
bad plan may elicit something better his
9 fact that State action has never been
orted to, is nothing. The Northern per
ties didn't need it, the tariffs snficed sha
N, and it is only just now CT think, that Col
of the South are beginning to learn con
hats the matter that entering supplies ces;
p down our supply works, and mar our I
ply means. Your question seems to me Coz
De advanced sentiment ] question If 7
same can be found in a half dozen ton
sses in the whole South. But We live to L
m, and in my opinion, it will not be is.
2 before the Southern people will quit /
lsing the protective priacspEs, and fall rie.
IN some plan OF pr0fting by it. do not I
ieve in its iniquities any more than I do Tel