Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1883-07-31
BIr. Randall and the Tariff
Question.

The opposition in the South to Mr.
Randall for Speaker is not based upor
any question as to his ability, his in.
tegrity or discretion as a Democrat,
but grows largely out of the idea that
be favors a high protective tariff fol-
the sake Of protection. We may have
personal preferences too as to men OF
even locality, but the Speakership is
Of such unusual Importance to the
party aud the country at this time
that these should be laid aside in
considering the main question. 1t is
due alike to sense of justice and to
sound policy that all the candidates
be given at least fair and impartial
hearing. A few extracts from the
speech Of Hon. Samuel j. Randall,
made in the House of Representatives
May 5, 1882, when the House was in
Committee Of the Whole, having under
consideration the Tariff Commission
bill, define his position very clearly.
He said:
la the matter OF taxation we are
acting under a written Constitution.
Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes, dnties, imports, and
excuses, to pay the debts and provide
for the common defense and general
welfare of the United States" | need
not enlarge upon our traditional his
tory in this regard, and it will be &C
oepted as true that only at periods of
great necessity and urgency have
excise and internal taxes been re-
sorted to. Our present internal reve
nue. system grew up out of the neces-
stiles of the war, and when those
necessities cease that taxation should
disappear. When the trainers of the
Constitution granted power to impose
excise duties 1t was point of serious
dispute and was agreed to finally only
as RESORT in case the government
should be involved in war, and not to
be exercised as a permanent mode of
raising revenue.
will not enlarge upon this; | be.
lieve it to be incOntrOvertible, how.
ever men may change sides because of
other considerations affecting other
questions; and | do not forget that
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the
Declaration of Independence and the
founder of the Democratic party,
brought about tie repeal of internal
or excise taxes as one of the very first
acts of his administration as President
of the United States.
l favor, therefore. as speedily IS
possible, a total abolition of our in
ternal revenue system, and | am ready
to join hands with any and all in this
house in favor OF an equalization of
our duties on imports No one who
understands the existing tariff laws
will deny the justice and necessity OF
revision. The present duties were for
the most part levied during war and
for the purpose of RAISING large war |
revenue. 1t will suffice in this con- |
nectiOn to quote the Industrial League |
as unansgerable 10 this regard, as it is
an admission on the part OF those who |
favor the highest protective duties:
They consider such revision desir- |
able for the interests both Of the in |
dustries affected and those Of cOnsum |
ers, partly on account Of some original
in the present tariff, and |
partly on account OF the notifications |
which are demanded by the changes |
which have occurred 10 conditions of 4
aud commerce.
There should be however no vicious
assault ou these laws. Changes should |
have firm foundation in reason, and |
especially Should we avoid mere |
experimental and purely speculative |
efforts on this vital subject. Our excess
OF revenue now approaches 10 amount
the annual receipts from internal or
excise taxes.
AS l have already said, a heavy
reduction or the abolition of internal
taxes would compel immediate reyis>
ion of our tariff laws. How that can
be done with most expedition is the
question which most directly concerns
us
1 do not favor tariff enacted apon
the ground of protection sibrplv for the
sake Of protection, because doubt
the existence OF any constitutional
warrant tor any such construction or
the grant OF any such power. Ii
would manifestly be in the nature of
class legislation, and to such legisla-
tion, fSvoring one class at the expense
of any other, l have always been op
posed.
In my judgment this question Of
free trade will not arise practically in
this country during cur lives, if ever,
so long as we continue to raise revenue
by duties on imports, and therefore
the discussion of that principle is an
absolute waste Of time. After our
public debt is paid in full our expend
itures can hardly be much below
800, 900, 900, aud if this is levied in
a business like and intelligent manner
1t will afford adequate protection to
every industrial interest In the United
States. The assertion that the con .
stitution permits the levying Of duties
in favor of protection for the sake Of
protection" is equally uncalled for and
unnecessary. Both are alike delusory
and not involved 10 shy psactical ad
ministrative policy. Ii brought 20 the
test, l believe neither would stand for
a day. Protection for the sake OF
protection is prohibition pure and
simple otimportation, aud il there be
no importation there will be no duties
col ected, and consequently no reye,
nue., leaving the necessary expenses OF
the government to be collected by
direct taxes-for internal taxes would
interfere with the protective
Drinoinle and pban Al.