Semi-weekly interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1881-1905, 1882-06-16

I N'fhoh'h eH'i k"hf VI hN W.
have here the purpose Of raising reve.
nue., and only that purpose expressed
by this amendment, and if that does
give incidental protection TO Ameri.
can industries, what American can
object TO that much protection 81
am not in favor Of the destruction OF
American industries or American pro.
ducts. 81 am in favor of assisting
them"
Senator Maxey, of Texas: "The
amendment requires the tariff 10 he
laid in such manner as 10 afford incl.
dental protection TO American indus.
tries. So far 80 good"
Representative Aiken, Of S. G.: "For
instance, 100 pounds Of East India
rice can be delivered in our custom.
houses for 80 80. IL costs our home
producers Of rice si.33 to place a like
quantity in our home market. The
difference is sl43. To that extent |
would protect the rice planter Of my
State. (Mr. Aiken is a violent anti
proteciionist.)
Representative Carlisle "But if
with this primary object revenue
only in view, the taxes or duties can
be so adjusted as 10 aid our industries
without imposing any burdens upon
the people beyond what otherwise
would have been necessary, there is
nothing in the policy advocated by
those who demand a reform in the
tariff TO forbid their encouragement or
protection to that extent y y =
But | hold that no tax or duty can be
possibly imposed without affecting to
greater or less extent some, or all
Of the industries Of the country; and
for my part would rather help them
than hurt them
IL will be seen from these quota
tions that every one of the eminent
gentlemen named recognizes and adj
mits, either expressly or by clear i'm
plication, the necessity of protection
10 American industries, and that eve.
~ one manifests a willingness some.
how and to some extent to give pro-
lection; and that four of them, viz
Senators Beck, Brown and Pugh, and
Representative Aiken, are in favor Of
giving all the protection needed to put
Americans on an equality with for
eigucrs in our markets, which latter,
by the way, is the position | have
endeayored 10 maintain.
But these Statesmen, except the
four las, mentioned, while conceding
the necessity and the justice Of extend
ing protection to our industrial in
terests, are only willing to give them
such aid as will result from duties
fixed at the lowest rate at which they
can be fixed so rs to bring the requisite
amount of revenue. They are not
willing to adjust the duties with refer
ence In the amount Of protection need
Ell at all, but exclusively with refer
ence TO revenue. In other words, IL
$500, 900, 900 OF revenue is TO be rails
ell, they propose to lay the duty at the
lowest figures TO produce that amount
OF money, and that, they say, will in
cidentally afford all the protectiO
that the industries ofthe country are
entitled to and all that they need. To
this object, because il can be demon
strated that the duties could be so ad-
iusted as to raise $500, 900, 900 of rev
enue and yet fall far short OF afford
ing adequate protection; whereas, they
could be so adjusted as TO raise that
amount of revenue, and no more, aud
at the same time afford ample pro-
lection.
Ii seems to me that if tariff protect
ION is necessary at all, and IT itis
right at all, then it follows that it
should be given as FAR as it is necessary
and can be given without transcend
ing the aggregate amount of revenue
needed for the government, and with
out giving to American manufacture
ers and producers any advantage in
our markets over importers Of foreign
products. Ii should be so arranged,
as have said, as TO put Americans
at least upon equal footing with for
eigners in American markets. To re-
fuse TO do this and at the same time
admit both the necessity and Justice of
protection, ! must insist, is inconsist-
ent.
But our free trade friends have a
hairsplitting theory that protection
resulting incidentally, though una
voidably, from tariff law, may not
only be tolerated, but is rather a good
thing; while protection done-o'-pnr-
pose will smash the constitution, upset
civil liberty and, perhaps, bring on
another deluge. Under microscope
this theory has about this appearance:
That tariff act containing within its
body declaration that il is for reven.
ne only, and a further declaration that
/ if any protection shall result from its
operation such protection shall be al
ways held and construed to be strictly
accidental, would be entirely free from
constitutional objection, no matter
how protective il might be in its eff
fleets, whereas, without such saving
clauses il would annihilate the fund.-
mental law.
They estimate that a tariff for rev.
niue would requires a duty averaging
about 20 per cent, and to that extent
| GO per cent they are willing 10 give
protection, Notwithstanding it is, rs
they claim, unconstitutional to thus
tax one class for the benifit of another