Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1888-09-12
Is Protection Unconstitutional Z

Frssak Lestie's IL OF the few alleged inde-
pendent pai,ers which do not use that appel.
lation as special guisc for the intcns sat typ,
OF Democracy. In its issue OF Aug II it very
ably discusses the question propounded ia the
above caption, and makes some apt criticisms
upon the absurd pretcnse Of some OF the Demo-
cratic leaders that they are not unfriendly to
the protective system, while at the Same time
sney man, man.ain ~ ina. p,o,eci,ye duties & are @ not
is its article:
IL en-, thing q settled moro clearly than an
ars las not be n fri ,ndly 10 eithe tho ptinci-
p o or t. -le polio; of protection. In 1852, under
iho Democratic leadership Of Calh un, they re-
belled In South Carolina aganss a protective tar
i'll, ami took steps to lf went its enforcement.
In 1861 hu part I ths Dtmocratc party CO
op rating in forni q the Confederate States de-
clared protective duties unconstitutional, ana
made pro.e. I've tariff impossible under the
ogaais law OF the COME leratc States. In 1881
the Denocra 1. party Of the Union, In conven-
tion assembled, decl rsti in favor OF a tariff
for revenue only Now, II duties Oh imports
are imposed for ihe purpose OF revenue only
they arc manifest,y not imposed 70, protection,
Influenced Doubt ss, b. this declaration OF
iion, these accepted Democratic leaders, John
q. Carlisle and Henry Watterson, have
repeatedly affirmed, in speeehe deiy. rel
in this city and elsewhere, that all duties
imf ossd for lrotec ion were demonstrations.
Speaker Carlisle. in elaborate nd.lr IS deliy-
cred before Tammany Hall in the campaign Of
1881, argued at great length that tariff taxation
for any 9th purpose han revenue was In clear
violation OF the Constitu ion. And Mr. Waiter
persisted in asserting in his new paper, for
some ye Lrs. that to imposs duties for the en-
couragement and protection OF Americ an manu-
facturers was no. only unconsti ntional, but
was downright robbery. Now, tho Joint we
make 10 this: How can the 10 Deuaocra ic lead
ers he friendly TO prot ecti0n, as they now wish
to make the re pie be love they ase, whtn III ,y
hold that protection for projections AXE Is I'm
constitutional? They either favor overriding
the Constitution OF oise they are hostile TO pro-
lection as principIo, ns the Republicans as
ssrt. IL projection to home industries IL rob
boy a. Mr. Watterson ma sntAins, then he 10
either q robbr or else an cnemy OF protection,
a. lha world knows. The u to recent attempt.
therefore, to make tho people Of III q
country believe that the Democratic party
10 not unfrieudiy to protective duties
" i'll prove failure The leaders OF that party
have placed tn ms slves too OF sen ths I'D
In favor OF iho proposition that dnties levied to
81 cure prote. ton arc EneOnstitu fonal, and,
more than that ifif.s they ars iegs ixed fom oi
robbery. OF course. u sufficient rnsw to all
this ignorant prets nsion is that ell uhoriliea
ON taxation hold that the taxing power OF the
Government is Unlimited, and that the purposes
with Congress. Tnro IL III, further overwbelnl.
ing answer that the men who made the Consti
tuition who composed lar ycly the first Congr SIS
dec are1 In the first and 81 md tariff acts tina,
they are passed for ',hs dsschArge Of the debtl
OF tho Uaitcd ktates and the announcement and
pIotec ion 0 nianHfa, ,tures. Wast iugtOn
Hamilton Madison. and Jefferson. who approved
OF these protective acts, probably knsw what
the Consti ulion meant 81 we'll as Mr.. Waiter.
son, aud were very respectable 40bbara, u III
pSotectionists bel ing to that class.