The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1882-04-04

hon. george 4. 9end!etm,
OF OHIO,
| In the U. S.:SeEate, March II, 1882.
The Senate as in COMMITTEES of the Whole,
having under consideration the bill Is No ~
to provide for the appointment of commits.
sion to investigate the question Of the tariff
and internal revenue laws.
Mr.. PENDIEToN said:
Mr.. PRESIDENT: | shall not delay
vote on this measure, which | know its
friends ave anxious to have a. soon as
possible; what have TO say relates more
to the general subject than to the meth
ods OF gathering information-more to
the general principles which should gov
ern our CONCLUSIONS than to the special
lpruvisons of.the bill which should be
passed The action taken elsewhere -
as by our rules must so express myself
when alluding to the House of Repre-
sentstives- leads me to believe that we
shall hest accomplish the purpose of
speedy and satisfactory reform of the
tariff, which every Senator processes to
desire, If the committees of Congress
shall at once address themselves to the
preparation OF the bill.
The real difficulties of the tariff qnes-
ton, as a matter of practical legislation,
arise out of the vast and complicated
details necessary to be adjusted. The
articles imported are 80 numerous, their
classification so difficult, their uses so
varied, the proper relation OF duty on
raw material and on the manufactured
article, the gradslions of amount when
duties are levied on an al valorem or
specific basis. the point where revenue
fails and exclusion begins these, and
very many more such details make up
the real difficulty of tue tariff qrestion
II it we're possible to reduce the issue
purely and simply to absolute free trade
on tie one side and absolute protection
on the oiher-if we should discard alto
gether the idea of tariff for revenue
there would be no necessity for consid-
cring these details, ard much OF the diff
ticuIty would disappear.
On such an Issue tbink It would not
be difficult to show that the simple rule
which every man applies in bis ordinary
and private transactions, "io bay where
he can buy cheapest and sell where he
can sell dearest" would be an equally
wise tenet of economic philosophy when
spilled TO the whole people. l think it
would be easy 20 show that tariff for
protection only, does not differ in es-
sence from the grant of bounty to the
producer Of the protected article Boun-
ties are paid out Of the treasury. and the
treasury is supplied bv taxes levied on
all the people. A tariff for protection
enables the protected producer 10 charge
all his customers a larger price than il
lie competed with the foreign article. 1t
a constitutional argument exists against
the grant Of public money IS bounties
for the benefit of individuals who pro-
duce certain articles, the same argument
exists against tariff for protection only.
II the whole body OF the people may not
be taxed in order that the money collect
ed may be given, under the name OF
bounty, to some who are pursuing spe-
cia industries for pivste gains so also
the whole people may not be compelled
nv legislation in suv way. however lndi-
rect. 10 pay larger price to the same
persons for the products of those indus
tries. II every article and every indus
try should be protected, aad every per-
son he made to paw larger price for
everv article be consumes,the extra price
he pays for everything except bis own
product would be fully equal to any adj
vantage he might derive from the pro-
lection afforded him and if any person
has a right to demand that his produc
.ton or industry shall he prottced. every
person has The same right to a relatively
equal protection. | will not elaborate
the argument. AS between free trade
and tariff solely for protection. with
out reference to revenue at all, the argu-
ment, en- the score OF principle, consti-
,u,ional law, and beneficial results, is
clearly in favor of freedom of trade.
And the argument maintains much Of
its strength when applied as between a
tariff for revenue only and tariff for
protection only.
The Senator from Maine Mr.. Frye
has gone further than any modern polil-
ical economist whom l remember. He
declared that he is protectionist from
principle; that If there were no public.
debt, no interest TO pay, no pension list,
no army and no navy to support, | use
bis .words.) he would still oppose tree
trade and it's twin sister tariff for reve-
nue. only, and favor protective duties. !
think he has no large following in the
Senate. As far as have observed, he
has no large following in the country.
will not argue that question. Such
an issue cannot rise under our present
conditions. The Federal Government
needs large revenue 1t has raised its
revenue, much of the time entirely, al
ways in great part, from tariff duties
Until we shall abandon this system, and
rely on internal tsxation for the supply
of the federal treasury, We must have
tariff for revenue We can neither in
dulge in absolute protection, and thus
have no revenue from duties, nor in ab-
solute free trade, and thus have no reve-
nue.. from duties. We must have tariff
for revenue, and We ought to so grade
it as, whilst raising sufficient revenue, to
impose the least turthen and do the least
harm to every interest involved. As !
have said, the adjustment of details con-
stitutes the real difficulty. The largest
a,tainahle revenue with the least hurthen
is the rule which should he adopted and
the free list. rates. classiications, should
he regulated accordingly. This requires
vast and varied and accurate knowledge
of all the different interests, all the ma
merous1 raw materials, all the manutac.
tured articles, all the products of our
soil and industry, all the necessities OF
agricultural development, all the lust
elaine of out labor, of all the produc.
tions and the legislation of the countries
With which We deal. and the most faith
fuI and nainatakipU annlicati0n of that