The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-11-17
NJ pandall's Tariff Views.

Mr., RandallS Iarlu views.
when we penned our article Of yesterday
on this subject We had mislaid the New
York Worlds report OF an interview with
Mr.. RANDALL had by one OF Its staff q few
DAYS previously. We have now that re-
port before us; and to show Mr.. RALDALL's
real position on the tariff question, we
quote all that he said on that subject. W.
quote:
al do not favor tariff enacted upon the
ground OF protection simply for the sake
Of protection, because I doubt the exist
ence Of any constitutional warrant for any
such construction, or the grant OF any such
power. II would maniicstly be in The na'
iurc OF class legislation, and 20 such legis.
lation fayoring one class at the expense OF
any other have always been opposed. In
my Judgment the question OF free trade
win not arise practically in this country
during our lives. So long as we continue
10 raise revenue by duties on imports,
therefore, the discussion OF that principle
i an absolute waste OF time. There Is
hardly man In public life who advocates
Il pure and simple. Nobody wants direct
taxation, although it would bring taxation
SO near and so constantly before the people
that Congress would hesitate. long before i
voted the sums OF money it now does, II
not for improper at least for questionable
purposes"
In the same interview, let us say right
here, he declared himself 10 be in favor oil
the entire abolition Of the whole Internal
revenue system.
Mr.. TUCKER will endorse the above re-
marks, we doubt not. OF course there are
protcctionists who hold that there is con-
stitutional warrant for framing tariff for
protection pure and simple. Such persons
can conscientiously advocate prohibitory
tariff. But Mr.. RANDALL, it Is evident,
holds prohibitory tariff to be unconstitu-
tional. Besides, as he well says, the Gov
eminent will for many years need so much
money annually that no party can be eN-
pected To advocate q tariff which would so
reduce the natlon's revenues as TO render a
return TO internal taxes necessary.
. What remainsy Nothing but a discrimi-
mating tariff. Not a prohibitory tariff; not
a tariff framed with an eye single to protcc-
ton; but a tariff which shall raise the most
revenue at the same time that IL shall give
incidentally the protection needed by the
various industries OF the country. Ii
would be ruinous 10 these industries, or
some of them at least, as well as an act OF
bad faith TO manufacturers who have in
vested their money on the strength of the
existing tariff laws, for the Government
suddenly to change its policy in this re-
gard. True craftsmanship demands that
lawmakers shall do the best they can I'M
der the circumstances which surround
them: not to try TO work up an ideal
theory. Ii would, for example, ruin
every tobacco-manufactTer in Virgil
mia for the Government to permit
manufactured tobacco to be brought into
this State from abroad free OF duty.
Why! Because the Governments own
tax on tobacco manufactured here is so
high that our manufacturers could not pay
that tax and at the same time compete with
foreign manufacturers. Take oil the Gov
eminent tax, and our manufacturers viii
need no protection. The circumstances
will be different. SO as to all other similar
articles. 1t will be the duty OF the Demo-
cratic party to discard theories and legis-
late with reference to solid facts.
In this connection read what Mr.. CAR
Isle, OF Kentucky, says. We quote:
81 am one of those who believe that the
power of taxation can be legitimately en-
ployed only for public purposes, or, in
other words, that the object OF all taxa
ton should be ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS only, if
YOU please; but if, with this primary OBJ
ject in view. taxes on duties can be 30 adj
justed as TO aid our industries without im-
posing any burdens upon the people be-
yond what otherwise would have been
necessary, there is nothing in the policy
advocated by those who demand reform
in the tariff to forbid their encouragement
or protection to that extent, and think it
can be demonstrated, so far as facts and
figures can demonstrate any proposition
upon such a subject, that such 4 policy
would afford I'LL the protection that any
legitimate and well-cOnducted industry
needs in this country"
II would puzzle Philadelphia lawyer tc
show wherein the two gentlemen differ il
these reports of their declarations on the
subject OF the tariff are true, = no doub
they are. "Let us have peace"