The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-05
MORE ABOUT INCIDENTAL rRorEC-
TION

lion.
OK one or two occasions heretofore W,
have found ii necessaryto refer TO REPRE-
SENTATIVE UrsoS's position on the tariff
We want it distinctly understood that W,
are making no fight against Mr.. UPsoN
but we cannot permit his statements
to 50 without comment by us il
the interests of the people. Per
sonally, we are the friends Of Mr.
UPsoN, and desire to see him reelected
to congress, for he has been one of the best
workers in that body but we had, in prin'
ciple, to differ with him on his proposition
tor tariff for revenue with incidental pro
lection. We took the ground that tariff oI
any character was protection to an extent
and we still feel that Mr.. UPsoN ought to
come down TO our free trade ideas
the only ones, indeed, that prom
Use us success-beiore his people are
truly represented. We are opposed,
both on principle and as matter of policy
to the absurd tariffs now part of the statute
laws of the country, and while we may
have the most unquestioned regard tor the
man, we have at the same time the dispo-
sition to criticise his opinions. We are
gratilied to note that tho positions we took
a week since are identcally the same as
those taken by that great free-trade
and circumspect journal, the Chicago
Times. Speaking with reference
to the matter, the Times says
"lf going to Cork were the necessary
effect of executing the purpose of going to
Dublin, the honorable Texas casuist could
have made a more plausible argument
against the proposition of a tariff for reve-
nue. only. But protection is not in any
sense necessary effect or incident of u
tariff for revenue. The assertion that it is
so, by whomsoever it be made, is an I'M
true assertion, made either in ignorance or
with willfu intent to deceive. 1t is not
necessary to take a single step, in effect or in
form, in the direction of protection, in lay
ing tariff for revenue. OF course, the mo-
ton of the honorable representative from
Texas that an exercise of the
power of laying taxes for revenue
only would exclude any part of the
purpose implied by the words ito provide
for the common defense and general well
fare" is simply absurd. 1t has been for
some centuries rather prevalent opinion
among the best informed statesmen, phil
osophers, and publicists, that the only
means which any government has of pro-
viding for the co nmon defense and general
welfare of the state is revenue. Revenue
per SO is not The purpose, nor any part OF
the purpose, of the taxing power. The
purpose Of that power is well and concisely
expressed in the words of our political
law ito pay the debts and provide for the
common defense and general welfare of the
nation" Revenue is the means which
government finds il necessary to
employ in fulfilling that purpose of the tax
ing power. Protection, on the other hand
is not ia any possible sense either means
or mode of paying the debts or providing
for the common defense and general well
fare of the nation. 1t is simply mode of
exerting the government power to redis-
tribute private earnings for the aggrandize.
ment of the particular persons whom it
protects at the cost Of the rest. This is
true not less of so-called incidental protec.
ton than of that which is the immediate
and primary object of the legislature.
Either is provision for the special private
benefit of some particular part or class of so
ciety. Neither is in any form or meaning or
effect provision for the general welfare"
From this it will be seen that we have not
Mn. UrsoN but have in our re-
marks simply voiced the sentiments of u
large majority of the American people A
tnrlll, as before stated, is protection whether
incidental or direct and We cannot but agree
with the Times in the statement that ''pro-
lection is not in any possible sense either n
means or mode of paying the debts or
providing for the common defense and
general welfare of the nation" II is Ger.
tdnly to ne hoped that our representatives
from Texas and the southwest will take an
interest in the matter and zee that such ah.
surd laws are not enacted.