National Republican., 1883-07-21
MAn stntnti hv MIR. mnhIson.n


ment" aud "the discharge of the dobt of the
United States" 1t was revenue Tariff Wash
fng'on Post
Mr.. Madison brought forward the measure
alluded to on the eighth Of April 1889, and
in his remarks on the Same used the following
language:
In pursuing this measure I know that two
points occur for our consideration. 7he fret re-
spects the general regulation of commerce, which
In my opinion, ought to be as free as the policy Of
nations will admit The second relates to revenue
alone and this is the point mean moro particu-
larly TO bring into the view ofthe committee.
Here we have the assurance of " the father
of the constitution" (for so Mr.. Madison has
been called) that the enactment of a tariff law
is an exercise of tho power to regulate COM
merco as we'll as of the power to raise revenue.
Indeed the lower rate of duties imposed on
goods imported in American vessels, than on
those imported in the vessels of foreign own
ers, was n regulation of commerce calculated
and intended to discourage importation in
foreign bottoms and to that extent did cut
Off revenue for the benefit and protection of
concerning the protection of manufactures:
The states that are most advanced in population
and ripe for manufactures ought to hare their par
ticutdr interests attended 10 in some degree While
these states retained the power of regulations of
trade they had the power to protect and cherish
such institutions; by adopting the present consi-
| tuition they have thrown the exercise of this
| power into other hands they must have done this
with an expectation that those interests would not
| be neglected here.
The preamble to tho act, which was the re-
suit of Mr. Madison's efforts, shows that it
was not II revenue tariff merely, for it is
therein declared to bo necessary for the
support of government, for the discharge of
the debts of the United States and the onco,W
ogemcmt aud PROTECTION OF MANUFACT-
UREs that duties be laid on goods, wares, and
merchandise imported" Is it honest for the
p Ost to quote the first part of the preamble
torial above quoted? Is that legitimate dis
cussion? When confronted with tho words
of the law itself that one of its objects is 'the
encouragement and protection of manufact-
ures," what sense or decency is there in re-
plying that the tariff it enacted "was not a
tariff for protection" We quote further from
the debate on the measure.
Mr.. Madison moved to lay an impost of eight
cents on all beer imported. He did not think this
| sum would give Il monopoly, but hoped 1t would
| be such an encouragement as to induce the man.
uiacture to take deep root in every state in the
| union.
Here was protection pure and simple. Not
prohibition, but protection. An article OF
home manufacture was to be encouraged to
an extent that would enable it to largely dis
place tho foregu-made article, and thus cut
off as much revenue as would have been de-
rived from the importations thus discouraged
and prevented.
But we have quoted enough to show that
the act of July 4, 1899, of which Mr.. Madi-
son was the father, was for revenue and pro.
tection, and that he himself distinctly advo-
Gated protection, not only as a correct principle
but as n duty. His recognition of the power
to regulate commerce as legitimate source
of authority for the imposition of duties on
foreign imports is direct contradiction OF
the doctrine that u tariff must be for revenue
only.
| Furthermore, the power of regulating com.
merce was claimed by Jefferson and Madison
in 1893 as having been conferred for the pur-
pose of enabling the United States in its own
interest to control the interchange of prod
ucts with other nations In other words,
they held that it was n power in our hands Il
be used for the promotion of American inter.
ests, and that it could be exercised through
the imposition of duties on imports.
One more quotation and we have done. Il
is from Mr.. Madison again, and gives the rea
son why he considered it the duty of congress
to exercise the power, of which he had nc
doubt, to protect manufactures by duties OIL
imports from foreign monopoly of ouI
tion of duties on tonnage May z, 1889, he said
Gentlemen who are opposed to giving sunicien
| encouragement 10 shpbuilding ought 10 recollec
| an argument that was considered of weight in tn,
case of encouraging manufactures 1t Is certain
that manufactures have been reared up by the
fostering care Of state legislatures, displayed in
the shape of protecting duties; but the people by
the adoption of this constitution have put II out
! of their power to continue them. Thost
states not being able to continue their encourage
mcnt expect that we will attend to their policy
and protect their citizens in the property they
We're led to acquire under the state regulations
If we disappoint them they will suffer more than
is consistent with good olicy.
The democracy may fight against protec
tion, but they cannot use the name of Madi
son for their cause. IIo was for protection t
American industry, The democratic policy
operates to the protection of the importers o.
foreign goods