The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-08-23
The Tariff


after the termination of the war Gen.
Washington recommended incidental
protection, under the provision of the
Constitution authorizing Congress to
levy duty on imports "to pay the debts
and provide for the common defence and
general welfare of the United States"
to those who should engage in the man.
ufaeture of munitions Of war. Upon
this recommendation tariff laws were
enacted and continued in operation
to the satisfaction of all down to 1916.
The idea upon which all laws up to this
date were based was tariff for revenue
with incidental protection to those man
ufactures which proper defence of the
country required. This judicious rule
was not observed in the tariff law of
1916. In that and every subsequent
law protection has been made the OBJ
jeet and net the incident. Duties have
been extended to more than four thous-
and articles and increased from five per
cent. in 1897 to more than one hundred
per cent. in 1870.
The effect of these laws have been to
impose the main burden of taxation up
ON the agriculturists, who are the con-
sumers, not only by the enhanced price
of imports, but indirectly in the con-
sequent depreciation of imports.
The policy of a general tariff has al
ways been questioned. In 1924 while
the New England States were yet en-
gagged in commercial pursuits, and be-
fore Daniel Webster began to scheme
for the Presidency, which he failed to win
by reason of his persistent advocacy
later of special and local interests, that
great man said l.: con the general ques-
ton, allow me to ask if the doctrine of
prohibition (high tariff amounts in sub
stance to prohibition as the receipts
from the customs abundantly prove)
as a general doctrine be not preposte-
rous? Suppose all nations to act upon
it they would be prosperous, then, ac-
cording to the argument, precisely in
the proportion in which they abolish in
tercourse with another. * Society
is full of excitement. Competition
comes in place of monopoly; and intel
ligence and industry ask only for fair
play and an open field. With
me it is fundamental axiom, it is inter-
woven with all my opinions that the
great interests of the country are united
and unseparable; that agriculture, COM
merce, and manufactures will prosper
together or languish together; and that
all legislation is dangerous which propos-
es to benefit one Of these without look
ing to consequences which may fall on
the Others" Adam Smith whose great
work on the "WeaIth of Nations" has
revolutionized public thought on almost
every topic discussed, says: "No reg
ulation Of commerce can increase the
quantity of industry in any society be
yond what its capital maintains. We
can't eat our cake twice. 1t can only
divert portion of it into direction
into which it might not otherwise have
gone; and it is by no means certain that
this artificial direction is likely to be
more advantageous to the society than
that into which it would have gone of
its own accord. Each man is the
best architect of his own fortune, and
when the individuals who compose a
nation prosper the nation prospers.
The statesman who should undertake
to direct private people in what manner
they ought to employ their capitals,
would not only load himself with
most unnecessary attention, but assume
an authority which could safely be
trusted, not only to no single person,
but to no council or senate whatever,
and which would nowhere be so danger
Gus as in the hands of man who had
folly and presumption enough to fancy
himself fit to exercise it.
To give the monopoly of the home
market to the produce of domestic in
dustry, is in some measure to direct pri-
vate people in what manner they ought
to employ their capitals, and must in
almost all cases, be either a hurtful or
useless regulation. If the produce of
domestic can be brought there as cheap
as that of foreign industry, the regula-
ton is evidently useless. If it cannot,
it must generally be hurtful." No pru-
dent man will make at home what he
can buy more cheaply abroad, and what
is prudence in private person can
scarce be folly in a great nation.
We have not alluded to the palpab.e
violation of the Constitution in the
enactment of tariff laws for purposes of
protection, because infractions of that
instrument have become so frequent as
to excite no interest.
We are not of those who think the |
South could advantageously abandon |
the policy of our forefathers and sue
cessfully adapt her pursuits to what is
conceived to be the permanent policy Of
the government so as to derive the ben
eft arising from a protective tariff.
There are few articles, except cottons,
in the manufacture of which the South
can now successfully compete with the
North. The proposition is selfevident.
The present high tariff on machinery
would of itself prevent it.
Protective tariffs foster monopolies,
build up one industry at the expense of
the others, and increase the burdens of
the people without giving them an
equivalent. The present tariff, to quote
II