Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-05-12
THE TARIFF.

The country 10 to be congratulated
upon the fact. that it has pass d beyond
the issnes involved in our civil a amt
is now occupied with questions whicl
eo.acern the present and the future
Among these the most important is th'
tariff. 1t 10 one Of the broadest ques
tons which occupy the attention o
statesmen. It 10 not q local fnteres
alone, nor is it even simply national. l
concerns the entire brotherhood of ma
tons, so far as they are bound tegethe'
by commercial intercourse. 1t is not
new issue, even in our youthful land
Almost from the first it has been promi
nent. During the administration o
the second Adams the policy of protec
ton was adopted, The duties were
increased in 1882, and led to the multi
fcstion troubles in South Carolina
Jackson and Clay together sti1led the
rising storm. But in 1s42. the higt
tariff was again enacted, to be seriously
modified by the law of 1886. The leg
islation since the war has been in thu
interest of protection, as we all know
There are two extreme views and
one intermediate upon the subject. The
first is, that it should be the settled
policy to lay such a permanent duty
upon all articles raised or made in this
country, as will practically prohibit the
importation of such competing goods.
The other extreme is, that duties should
be laid for the sole purpose Of raising
9 revenue, with which to meet our na
tional expenses. The intermediate po-
sition contends that the true purport
of an import tax is to raise q ma
tional revenue but that, in addi-
ton to this, it may be so levied as
to foster infant and promising indus
tries which need temporary protection.
This last is manifestlyS compromise.
The issue of principle Is between the
other two.
The quarterly review is, Of course,
the place for the full and elaborate dis
cussion of this question. We can only
suggest a few points. 1t can be con-
sidered from the standpoint of the ma
tionaI constitution. Congress- is given
the power to tax the people directly,
by excuses or by imports The duty OIL
imports is, therefore, constitutional,
provided it be laid for . constitutional
purpose. The constitution provides
that congress may levy taxes for the
payment of the public debt, for the
common defense, and for the general
welfare. These duties which are levied
for protection a by no possibility be
brought under any but the third Of
these purposes. 1t is, therefore, mar
rowed down to the question: Are pro-
tective duties levied for the general
welfare?
Let US see. Is it for the general vel.
faro of the United States that q duty OF
two cents per pound should be levied
on all imported sugars3 1t is for the
benefit of a few sugar planters in
Louisiana. Was it for the genera
welfare of the people when quinine
was taxed2 No, but for the special
benefit of three firms that manufactured
it. 1t seems a serious question wheth-
under the constitution, ajax that is
levied not for revenue, but for protec
ton, is legal.
We know that this is met by the as
sertion that protection, while it direct.
benefits only a few, is indirectly a
benefit to all. This brings up the SUBJ
ject under the head of its expediency,
as a question of state policy. Many
reasons can be given to show that 1t is
impolitic. The ground upon which
the necessity of protection is urged is,
that labor and capital invested in the
production protected is not remunera-
tive. This, if true, comedies the whole
issue. For it is a confession that the
same labor and capital, if directed to
other things, would be self. sustaining.
The demand is made that the other in
dustries Of the country shall be taxed
support these, because otherwise
they cannot be maintained. That is,
the profitableindustries should be tax
ed to sustain the Improbable; which is
a confession that these protected indus
tries are improbable. If they are un-
profitable they are a loss to the general
welfare by the amount that they fall
below the average value of the other
industries Of the land. That is, if the
average value of labor per day is two
dollars, and of these protected inter-
ests is only n and q half, then the
country loses half a dollar q day for
every laborer who is thus unprofitably
employed. If there are one million of
men engaged in these enterprises, then
the country loses half q million of dol
lars a day, or n hundred and eighty
millions a year by the endeavor to keep
up these improbable factories.
The truth, however, is, that in the
majority of cases this plea of unprof-
tableness is untrue. This seems a rash
and probably, to some,a harsh assertion.
What are the fsctsp Where is the
wealth of this country chiefly found?
In the agricultural, The commercial, or
the manufacturing sections? Most
farmers, ever in the. worst farmed
regions. do not more than make a CON-
Portable support. OF merchants, over
ninety per cent. fail entirely in bnsi-
ness, while a few become rich. But if
90 to the manufacturing districts,
we will find the men who own the
bonds of the country. national, state,
county, municipal, bank and railroad.
These men hold the stock in the great
mills of the country. These are the