Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1884-03-25
Carlisle OIL Free Trade.
THE SPEAKERS ADDRESS AT THE NEW YORK
FREE-TRADE CLUB DINNER.

Carlisle OIL Free Trade.
THE SPEAKERS ADDRESS AT THE NEW YORK
FREE-TRADE CLUB DINNER.
The annual dinner of the New York Free
Trade Club took place at Delmonico's Sat- |
lrday evening, the 18th inst, and was at
tended by upwards of $50 gentlemen. Let
ters of regret we're read from Senators PEN
dleton, Beck, and Bayard, from Congress
man Rosecrans, Charles Francis Adams, Jr.,
R. G. Mills, Henry Ward Beecher, the Rev.
Henry Mottet and the Rev. DR.. Howard
Crosby. Speaker Carlisle made the leading
address, as follows:
Mr.. President and Gentlemen of the Clatb:
Before the adoption of the federal constitu-
ton, the old confederacy was but the skele-
ton of government. 1t had no power to
impose taxes, to regulate commerce, or to
administer Justice. Ithad but one essential
to real government-the legislative-and
even that was defective and almost impo-
tent. Each State had the right to lay i'm
posts and duties, subject only to the condi-
ton that they should not interfere with
treaties entered into by the United States
in Congress assembled with foreign kings
and princes. There was no limit to the
power of State to impose duties on the
products of any other American State
brought within its limits for sale or consump-
ton. For the purpose of raising revenue or
for the purpose of encouraging its own
domestic manufactures, the State of New
York had the power to impose any rate of
duty it saw fit to establish on the products
of New Jersey, and New Jersey possessed
the6ame power in respect to the products
of the State of New York. If the doctrine
of protection is what it's friends claim it to
be-if it's application to infant industries in
new States enables them to overcome ma
tural disadvantages and to secure higher
degree of prosperity than would be other
wise attainable-it must be admitted that
that arrangement existed under the con-
federation and it ought not to have been
disturbed. But the trainers of the constitu-
tion-the men who founded the Federal
Union-did not think SO. They believed
that absolute free trade between the several
States was imperatively demanded by the
interests of the people. And accordingly
they adopted this provision of the constitu-
ton without single dissenting vote: 'No
State shall without the consent of Congress
lay any imposts or duties on imports OF ex-
ports except what may be absolutely neces-
sary for the execution of its inspection laws,
and the net produce of all duties and i'm
posts levied by any State on imports or ex-
ports shall be for the use of the treasury Of
the United States, and all such laws shall
be subject to revision and control by Con-
gress."
It is true that George Clymer, of Pennsyl-
vania, said in the convention while this sub
ject was under consideration: "If the States
have such difficulty in their intercourse that
they cannot be left to regulate their own
manufactures without encountering the in
terest of other States, it is proof that they
are not fit to compose one nation" But he
stood substantially alone against the provi-
sion, and when the vote was takeI, not a
single State was recorded against it. Thus
free trade was established by the constitu-
ton, not only between the States then exist
ing, but between all the States that might
thereafter exist as members of the Federal
Union. I believe I may venture to say that
the most ardent advocate of the protective
system must admit that the wonderful
growth of the country is attributable large
ly to this provision-more largely than to
any other one thing. Under the liberal
policy established by the constitution, our
means of internal commerce and transporta-
ton have increased and are still increasing,
while under the restrictive and obstructive
policy of Congress, our merchant marine,
once source of pride and profit, has almost
disappeared from the seas. And unless
something can be done to arrest its further
decrease it will disappear entirely. Free
commercial intercourse between the States
has encouraged trade, developed our natural
fOcfn ann fonf11p md
added untold millions to the wealth of the
people, while the protective system main
tanned by congressional legislation has, to a
large extent at least, shut us out from the
markets of the outside world, limited pro-
duction substantially to the home demand,
and actually arrested in many cases the fur
Their development of great industrial inter-
ests. Under this system, when any highly
protected manufacture reaches the stage
when it is enabled to supply the home de-
mand, its growth must virtually cease, as
it's products have access to no other market.
The constitution not only prohibits States
from laying imposts or duties on imports or
exports, but it expressly delegates to Con-
gress the power to 'slay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts and excuses to pay the debts
of the country and to provide for the COM
mon defense and the general welfare. y
This is wholly separate and distinct from
the power to regulate commerce ''between
the United States and foreign nations, and
among the several States and with the In
dian tribes" conf .rred by another clause of
the constitution. The two powers have diff
ferent purposes, and it is a montrous abuse
of the power of taxation to use, it not to raise
revenue but for the purpose of regulating
or prohibiting commerce. 1t is, if possible,
a still greater abuse of that power to apply
it for private instead Of public purposes
When the primary or principal object of
taxation imposed by the authorities is to
foster private interests, it is not alegitimate
use of taxation, but simply spoliation.-
Whether what is called protection, either
direct or incidental, is or is not really bene-
fetal to our industries is question which
will never meet anything like perfect
unanimity of opinion: but whatever may be
our opinion on that question, most of us
will agree that there may be conditions
where it might not be wise to suddenly
change from bad policy to good one
When manufacturing interests have grown
up under high protective system, or in a
series of years have adjusted themselves to
it, and when those engaged in them have
become accustomed to rely upon government
bounty for support, it might be injurious
and even disastrous to them to suddenly re-
peal or greatly reduce duties. Such course
might seriously alarm those who employ
their capital in these enterprises, and when
capital is alarmed, even without cause,
the result for the time being is practically
the same as if the disaster were real. For
this reason, if there were no others, it has
always been my opinion thatit was the duty
of Congress to proceed carefully and con-
in legislating on this subject, |
having due regard at every step to the large
interests involved. In other words, favor
rS1pation, not revolution.
ne process of reformation must go
nsewer of taxation is used only
nSoses. There must be no
>alicy. This Fed
rs I