Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-05-29
lanraster fntellige11cer.
TUESDAY BVEN1Na. MAY 20. 1883.

TUESDAY BvEN1Na. NAY 20. 1883.
The Purpose OF Tariff.
Senator Bayard and ex-senator Nc
Donald have been giving their views on
the tariff issue to the editor of the New
York World. They are both i'll favor of
" tariff for revenue only" Mr.. Nc
Donald thought that though & We may
be some time in reaching solution OF
the question, as the public mind comes
to be enlightened it will not be satisfied
with any tariff that has not for its lead
ing purpose the raising of revenue for
the government, nor with the details OF
any tariff law in which the duties laid
upon foreign merchandise, shall be above
the revenue paid" We also think that
it will be some time before the public
mind will demand such tariff law, and
that in time it will demand it but not
because it does not think that the gov
ernment should protect American man
ufactures when they need it it will
reach this demand when it is satisfied
that our manufacturers will flourish
without protection as at some day, and
not distant one, they will.
Senator Bayard, we understand, to
argue that a protective tariff is uncon-
stitutional, because the federal con.
stitution does not authorize the taking
of private property except for pub
lie use and then not without
compensation. The senator's PROPOSE
tion is not remarkably lucid, but we
gather his idea to be that the taking of
tax for purposes of revenue is legiti
mate, because the money is for the use
of the government, and that the citizen
gets his compensation for it in the pro-
lection the government affords him !;
whereas the levying of aprotective tax
is a taking of the peoples money for the
benefit of those engaged in the protected
industries, and is, therefore, such a
taking of property for private use as is
unconstitutional.
But the government does not take the
peoples money in levying a protective
tax. Ifthe tax is thoroughly protective
the government gets no revenue from it.
1t simply prohibits the importation of
the article and forbids the people to use
the foreign commodity. If the tax is
not so high as to forbid importation, the
government gets revenue from it and
applies that revenue to. the public expen
ditures just as it would a revenue
derived from tariff levied only for
revenue purposes.
The question in the tariff discussion
is as to whether the government has a
right to lay an embargo on foreign pro
ducts. 1t has nothing whatever to dc
with the issue which we understand
Senator Bayard to present, that it is un
constitutional to take property for pri'
vate and not for public use. If the
United States cannot constitutional,
prohibit the importation of any article
whose importation its Congress deem:
not to be for the public good, then il
cannot levy tariff rate which would b.
wholly or in part prohibitory of sucl
importation. 1t is rather late date tt
raise this constitutional question as to tn,
authority of Congress. After it has beer
exercised since the governments forma
tion, that point may be considered to b.
settled. The question of the policy of sucl
an embargo on foreign manufacture
remains for agitation and will be con
tinued to be agitated until it clearly ar
pears, as it will some day, that tie rrin
cipal manufactures of the country Cal
prosper better on a free trade than on
protective policy.
We suppose that the majority of peo
pie will not deny that the United State
should prohibit the importation of slave
and convicts, lepers and those having
contagious diseases, to say nothing O
Chinese and barbarians. If it ma!
prohibit Objectionable people from
coming into the country it ma.
forbid the importation of objection
able things, infected clothing an,
cattle for instance; and if things object
tionable may be be kept out of the coun
try, those which are Objectionable b,
reason of their effect upon the country
industry may by the same logic be exclu
ded. The power clearly exists,as we hav'
said, to levy protective duties, and tn,
only point is as to the way of its exercise
THE Harrisburg correspondent of tn
Pittsburgh Dispatch very pertinentl,
calls attention to the fact that while tn
House is disturbing itself and workin,
up deal of futile popular excitemen
over measures of secondary importanc
or that have no possible chance of pas
sage this session, number of other bill
that are of primal consideration ant
have gone over from the Senate to tn
House, ready for enactment, are left t.
slumber and die. Notable among thes
is the bill of Senator Hall to eschea
consolidated competing telegraph lines
against which measure it is we'll know
that an active lobby agent has been per
sistently at work. Has it been due t.
his influence that this measure has beef
held in committee until it obtained s,
low place on the calendar that it can
not be reached ? And what has becom,
of Senator Humes' bill, requiring tha
the millions of state money, nov lying
idle in the favored depOsitOrieS of th,