The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-05-01
Is II a Question Of principle2

We would like for our readers to weigh
the suggestions contained in the following
paragraph from the Lynchburg Advance.
We cannot think that anybody will be able
10 find in II such discussion OF the tariff
question as Is Objectionable. II is an APP
peal TO the common-sense OF 'he Democrats
of Virginia. When we read the unwise
utterances OF WATTERsoN and his follow
crs, we can hardly refrain from commenting
upon them; but when we come across such
paragraph as the following, we find our
selves ready and willing to acknowledge
that perhaps II Is best-for the present at
least--to let the "heathen rage and the
wicked imagine vain thing" The i'd
vance says:
1--WE hear great deal about this stick
ing to principle in regard to the tariti. we
think there has been a great deal OF dark
ening counsel by words without wisdom
in this matter-a great deal OF heat about
meters Of simple detail, where compro-
mise. adding up and dividing by twelve,
like Jury, would have sacrificed no prin-
ciple, and saved some hard words.
prohibitory tariff Is, in our view, unconSti-
tutional. and to this we could not yield
without the sacrifice OF principle-it would
foster and create monopolies. A tariff for
revenue, however low, gives OF necessity
an advantage called protection to home
manufactures OF like character with those
imported and taxed. The object OF
taxing should be 10 raise revenue
not prices--to protect and defend
the Government-not the manufactu-
rers. All agree that a tariff is right.
and that revenue should be collected
by .ariff. Why then not compromise and
reform the present rates reddiust the du-
ties One man,wants iron-ore free, but
there is no just reason for this; another
wants IL reduced below So cents; another
wants co; another 81 80, and others 81.
Now. no principle is involved in these
rates. They are matters OF detail. IL is
rs constitutional and just to tax raw mate
rial as il is manufactures, and IL is as pro-
per TO give il the incidental protection
which the tax secures. Why not adjust
and compromise on some rate without
wrangling or heart-burning SO we say OF
wool, so oi lumber, so OF hides. We VEN
ture II this subject is left TO the Democratic
party to be settled by a Democratic Senate
and House OF Representatives, and left TO
the approval of Democratic President.
that il will not take two months to reform,
adjust, perfect, and complete the whole
matter. and put 1t into successful and salts
factory operation"
Mr.. RANDALL himself, the leader Of his
side, openly, distinctly. unequiyocally de-
MES the constitutional power OF Congress
TO levy a tariff for protection only, or OF
which protection is the object. In his
opinion. customs-duties must be laid for
the purpose OF raising revenue to support
the Government. But, this being conceded.
he adds that tariff whose prime object is
revenue may under the Constitution be so
adjusted as to afford incidental protection
20 domestic industries. This, as we under
stand it, is the teaching OF the Lynchburg
platform. This is all that is claimed by Con-
VERSE, or EATON, or HOPKINS, or any other
Democratic statesman. Mr.. TUCKER HIM
self would not deny the soundncss Of that
doctrine, we presume.
Why, then, cannot all good Democrats
cease TO talk Of making the MORRISON no.
rizOntal tariff bill test OF what cOnSti-
tutes sound Democracy 1t cannot be
done,