National Republican., 1883-11-02
The New Lights VS.. the Founders.


The New Lights VS.. the Founders.
The Washington organ of the protective
froe-trado democrats, who favor go-as-you-
please.f .free-for.al policy until after the presi-
dental election, is pleased to explain to us tho
difference which it says does and at the samo
time does not exist between the Tilden tariff
"only for revenue" and the wattcrson tariff
''for revenue only" Says our journalistic
political tight-rope balaucer:
Our stalwnrt contemporary is hereby informed
that we do not find any material difference be-
tween "only for revenue and "for revenue only.'
The mistake" consisted in using language ex-
prcssy liable to injurious misconstruction. Our
neighbor will, we suppose, agree with us that the
necessity for revenue is the "only" constitutional
warrant for n tarif or any other tax
We trust that Mr. Watterson will be able to
discover in the above sufficient reason for
object. We cannot
We do not agree that tho necessity for rev.
enue is the only constitutional warrant for a
tariff. The word tariff is defined to be a
schedule or table of duties or customs payable
to tho government on merchandise imported
or exported" Tho constitution says congress
shall have power to lay duties to pay the
debts and provide for tho common defense
and general welfare of the United States"
and also the power "to regulate commerce
with foreign nations" The ratio of duties
may bo solely for revenue, or sol ely to dis
courage certain importations, or to pro-
mote them. They may be so high
rs to yield much less revenue than
could be obtained. They cease to be for rev.
enue only when in their adjustment there is
the lcsst deviation in the direction of dis
eouraging or reducing impoitations. They are
protective rs we'll as for revenue whenever
thoy in the least degree prevent or reduce
foreign competition with domestic ind dustry.
Duties may be laid under the power to raise
revenue, or under tho power to regulate
commerce. Said James Madison in 1928:
A further evidence in support of the cOnsiitu.
iotioRs of ddc-au evidence that ought in itself to
settle the Question-is the uniform aud practical
sanction given in that power for nearly forty
years, with concurrence or ncquiscence of every
ate government throughout the same period,
and. it may be added, through all the yicisstudes
OF party which warped that period.
The preamble of the first tariff act ever
passed in the United States and the second
of any kind passed by congress, reads as fol-
lows:
Whereas II is necessary for the support OF the
government, for the discharge of the debt of the
United Sta.cs, and the encouragement and pro-
lection OF manufactures, that duties be levied on
goods; wares, and merchandise imported.
Thomas II. Benton, in his "Thirty Years
View,' has a chapter o. the Regulation of
the expositions by Jefferson and Madison, as
given in the report of the former as secretary
of state ION the restrictions and privileges of
the commerce of tho United States with
foreign countries" and in tho resolutions of
the latter offered in the house of representa-
tivcs in the year 1893 for the regulation of
our foreign commerce." Mr.. Benton says:
The mode of acting was by discriminating in
the imposition of duties between those which had
and had not commercial treaties with us-the OBJ
jcct TO be accomplished by an act of congress to
that effect.
So as good an authority as Mr.. Benton be-
lieved that he but re-enforced the views of
Jefferson aud Madison when he declared that
constitutional mode of acting under the
pOwer to regulate commerce. was through acts of
congress discriminating in the imposition Of
duties" Thus the founders and the early ex-
Founders of the constitution believed in q
tariff neither for revenue only nor yet only
for revenue, but for the general welfare, and
through the power to regulate commerce as
we'll as the power to lay duties for revenue.
OF course Jefferson, Madison, and Benton
were mistaken if Tilden Watterson, and the
Post are right.