The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-30
fnoal ProtecticI.


sh.nst NOM the time Of the foundation
~ ~ United States Government down 10
th,s t,sy prssection has been granted by 10
l,vs to the manuiac snrers q this country.
Thcse asws, howeyep. are n force In Call
sornis ana Texas as Wei rs in Maine and
Massachusetts,, and so afford no profession
% one set OF local manufacturers as against
che competition Of any other local manu-
sactsrers. But there have always been
large number OF persons in this country.
iacfsxiing men OF every degree, who
d3y the right Of Congress to legislate
for the protection Of domestic manu-
PASTURES, or ~ American Industries
as the pr0sccnonisss are fond OF
rasrasing Il. They say that In framing
q tariff Congress should consider only Its
reyenue-yielding capability. The extreme
or upcompromsing Free Traders would
have all tho geyenuc collected, ifpossible,
from articles not produced In this country,
90 that in collecting a million OF dollars for
the support Of the Government, we should
not also enable manufacturers to collect
several other millions OF dollars from the
consumers Of the products OF their
foundrics, shops, and factories. Coffee, tea,
champagne, &c., are articles OF that sort.
The extreme protcctionists, on the otheI
hand, would frame tariff with an eye
single ITO protection. They do not object
eyon to prohibitoFy duties. Between
these two extremes, there is middle
ground which Is occupied by per-
sons who fayer,a tariff that will both
ytad revenue and protect American indus
tries. To this last class belong Mr.. RAN
nAuL, Mr.. GEORGE ID. WISE, and many
other Democrats. This Is the doctrine OF
the Democrats OF Ohio as laid down In
their hast platform. 1t was.the doctrine OF
General Jackson, and we suppose we may
say Is that OF General HANCOCK.
AL this by way Of introduction to an
article from the Petersburg Mail, which
quotes paragraph from the State as fol-
lows:
."In South Carolina and Georgia the cot
communicative are rapidly building up
a substantial trade, and are making hand
some profits on their investments. In
tyble published recently IN BradStreefs 1t
was shown that the largest dividend de-
clared by the cottob-mills OF New England
since 1863 was 12t per cent, which was IN
1896. The average dividend in 1881 was
81 per cent. in 1852, ~ per cent. Accord
ing TO the last report OF the State Depart
ment OF Agriculture the net profits OF the
cotton. mills in South Carolina in 1882
ranged from 10 to 20 per cent
And then, using that paragraph as text,
addresses the following remarks to us:
We would like for our friends of the
Dispatch to give us their opinion rs to
whether this gratifying exhibit in the mat
ter OF South Caroline Is due to the policy
of exemption which that State has adopted.
"Also, whether exemption If manufac-
furcr's plant is desirable as a stimulus to
manufacture. Would such n policy, in
their opinion, serve to attract capital to this
State, which, but for the inducement thus
offered, would be allowed either to remain
uninvested or else be diverted to other
ftates, where, II no inducements in the
way Of exemption are offered, tue natural
advantages are as good as those offered by
our own Statey
1.-The question OF exemption is one
which we would like to see discussed, not
on its legal merits. but simply as an induce
ment to capitalists. And the Dispatch,
ever solicitous as Il isfOr the welfare Of the
State and its industries, will, we feel as
sured. advocate sucha policy IL it IS salts
fed OF the souDdnoss thereof.
"What SAYS our hrotber?"
1. We answer thai we do not consider il |
possible that exemption from tax OF five
hundred dollars a year upon IA capital Of
,ne hundred thousand dollars could Occa-
sion any such results The product OF
such pknt might be a million Of dollars
J year.
2. We doubt the policy and the justice
Of such exemptions, as well as the power
Of any legislative body to make them. II
there can he even doubt as to the power
Of Congress to protect manufactures in
tariff law, the right to allow such cxemp-
tions as the Moii speaks OF must be ey-
ceedingly doubtful. or, to make an Irish
bull. cannot be doubtful at all. We
can find constitutional warrant for Incl
dentsl protection to all American indus
tries, but none for such local protection us
the Mail refers 10. At the same time. we
must own that the two kinds OF protection
appear 10 be so nearly allied that TO eoun-
tenance the one and oppose the other may
very well seem 90 some persons to be in
And should the Mail argue
that II Congress has the power to frame a
protective tariff 1t has the power to forbid
State to discriminate against the products
OF the factories OF other States, we do not
know but we should have to admit that
that might be logical conclusion.
---------------
StalWart vs Haif-Rraed