Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1883-05-24

repudiates the idea Of determinations
with view to Incidental protection,
would require this revenue to be raised
upon tea and coffee, although the duty
on wool could not create monopolies,
and would encourage the production
of an article for which our country
has immense capacity in its vast scope
of waste lands adapted to the raising
of sheep. In the tariff of the Rcpub.
lican party, recently passed in Con-
gress, the ten per cent. AID VALOREM
duty on imported wool was repealed
for the benefit of the wooden factories,
which are protected by n high duty
upon imported woolen fabrics. But
the wool.growers associations say, that
they cannot look to the Democracy for
relief, if that party repudatcs the
principle Of incidental protection in
the tariff.
We have numerous letters lsome of
them are anonymous on our table,
received within few days, from differ
cnt sections, saying that clubs and as
,ociations have been formed so cxtcn-
,Ively over the country in favor Of the
| phrase, "A tariff for revenue ONLY,
that the next Democratic National
| Convention will doubtless adopt that
/ plank in its platform. BE it SO. That
cannot change the facts, nor our posi-
/ ton. The principle Of incidental
/ protection, or the policy of fostering
and encouraging the productive indus
tries of the country incidentally in
raising revenue, has been recognized
/ in every tariff since the Government
was formed.
The tariff act OF 1893, approved by
/ Washington, contained the following
"WHEEEAs, 1t Is necessary for the
support of the Government, for the
discharge of the debt Of the United
states, and the encouragement and
protection of the manufacturers, that
duties be laid, dc.
Mr.. Madison drafted and introduced
this first tariff bilI and in advocating
it he distinctly recognized the doctrine
of incidental encouragement to home
productive industry, n the dictate OF
sound policy. aud A. fully within the
constitutional powers of COugr,>..
Subsequently, in ISIS, Mr.. Madison,
in his celebrated letter to Cabcll, more
fully presented his views on this pre-
. else question, in which b. showed ,he
power of Congress 70 encourage the
domestic industries To be- derived
from the power "to lay and collect
taxes, dutIc-.' &c, aud N' ggwsr ~
rsguil's trldc. And hi- views in this
letter have been deemed by many ~
conclusive aud uuan-wcrab.c on th..
subject.
Jefferson, in hi, first inaugural adj
dress, aud in bis message Of lsU2, and
in that OF l~U>. explicitly recognized
the po'r,r and The duty OF Congress To
foster aud encourage domestic manu-
tacturcs by protecting duties, &c.
President Monroe did the same
thing. And General Jackson did 80
IN his first inaugural address aud in
his message To Congress Of the 9Th o;
. December, 1880. be said
The power to impose duties On i'm
ports originally belonged to the several
( States The right to adjust these
/ duties WITH 4 VIEW To THE rNCorE.
/ AGENENT Of the domestic brauchc. Of
industry Is so completely identical
with that power, that it j, difficult to
suppose the existence of the one with
out the other This
I Indispensable power thus surrendered
/ by the States, must be wi;hiu the scope
OF the authority on the subject cx-
pressly delegated to Congress In TIN,
conclusion, am confirmed n well by
the opinion of President Washington,
Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, who
have repeatedly recommended the cx-
crcisc OF this right under the Con-titu.
tion, As 10y the uniform practice of
. Congress, the continued acquiescence
Of the States, and the general under.
standing of the people
The same doctrine substantially was
recognized and declared by Presidents
Van Buren,, Polk, Pierce aud Bu-
chanan And the power and policy
Of fostering and encouraging domestic
industries incidentally in the federal
revenue system has been uniformly
recognized by Congress. But the
leaders of the opposition to the Demo
cracy have always gone further and
made protection the leading objer' OF
the tariff, and revenue the mere incl
dent. And this has been the actual
difference between the two parties.
/ The so.called Republican party has
insisted upon and maintained, when in
power, a protective tariff, that is, a
tariff which made protection lie object
and revenue the incident, while the
Democracy has maintained tariff for
rereHue with protection as its simple
incident And there never has been
a time when this incidental encourage