Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1883-04-24
The Tariff In 1929.

The question of tariff for protection
is not new one in the history OF
this government. The Charlottesville
Chronicle has in its possession manu-
script letter, addressed by Judge George
Hay, of Loudoun, in 1929, to then
young member of the Charlottesville
bar, in response to request for his views
on the tariff. Judge Hay was at the
date of the letter 1929 Judge of the
United States Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia: He was son-in'
law of President Monroe. and man of
great ability. He differed in opinion
from his distinguished father-in-lsw, on
the subject referred to, but takes occa-
sion to say of him that he regards him
as one of the best expounders of the con-
stitution then living.
The arguments then advanced by
Judge Hay against a protective tariff
are very pertinent to discussion of that
question now, even more SO than at the
time they were advanced, as will he
seen by the following propositions set
forth in his letter,
His first proposition is, that the pow
er to encouragesmanufactures, and, of
course, directing and controlling the Ia
Dor and industry of the nation is pri-
mary, and most important power. The
constitution has not a word to say di-
rectly on the subject of manufactures
If a power thus important had been in
tended to be given, it would, in his
opinion have been expressly given. The
power to levy duties for the purpose OF
paying debts, &C., is clearly power
granted for specific purpose. The pro-
motion of domestic manufactures may
be the effect of duty legitimately i'm
posed solely for the purpose of revenue,
but that does not give Congress the pow
er to legislate directly on the subject.
The effect of war with England, says
the writer, by way of illustration, would
be to promote domestic manufactures
but no man would deduce the power tc
promote domestic manufacturers from
this effect.
The power to regulate commerce is
not power to promote domestic manu-
features. The latter is not only not
commercial, but exclusively matter o.
internal economy and policy. Under
the power to regulate commerce, gov
eminent may prohibit the importation
of certain articles from particular ma
tons, whom we wish to coerce by such
means but prohibition of certain ar
ticles from all nations would be mani
testify regulation for the benefit Of
manufactures under the mask and pre-
tence of commercial regulation. And
so we may admit the right to prohibits
certain articles necessary for our defenct
in time of war, with view to secure ar
abundant supply at home in time o
peace; but there is wide difference be.
tween prohibition for snch purpose
and prohibition for the purpose of estab
, fishing system of manufactures. Judgf
Hay concludes the points of his argu
ment as follows:-
"1f we adopt commercial regulation
with view to encourage domestic man
ufactures, we give sort of pledge t.
those engaged in them that can neve
p be redeemed. If we encourage one in
terest, we must encourage another ant
every other; and if we go to one point
we shall never have respite until W
I have reached that beyond which we can
o not go. The British have reached tina
point, and the manufacturers of tina
D country are now reduced to the extrem
. ity of wretchedness