The western sentinel. [volume] (Winston-Salem, N.C.) 1887-1926, 1888-03-29

the general vel are in that way. That
is, the taxing power is properly exer.
cised when used to defeat itself!
Therefore to lay and collect taxes
on foreign goods for the. purpose of in.
creasing the price of goods in the
hands Of citizen would not be consti-
tutional unless you could apply, the
money collected for the same purpose
admitting that the tariff permits
some to be collected. When it per-
| mits none to be collected, being placed
so high as to prohibit forei gn importa-
tions, surely no one would pretend
that the law could be justified under
this taxing clause OF the constitutiou-
Nor can it be sustained under tho
third clause, which gives Congress
power to regulate commerce with for
eign nations, for this would be to de-
stroy, not to regulate, and power to
regulate is not power to destroy
Those who advocate tariff for pro-
lection, therefore, claim in effect that
Congress has power to lay taxes which
are not to be collected, in order to pro-
vide for the general welfare, and to
defeat pro tanto or IN toto, the object
for which the taxing power was gran
ted.
They are also in the wrong equally,
it seems to me, in asserting that pro-
lection can be one of the purposes of
the taxing power at all. It has been
decided again and again by the highest
courts of both States and United States
that taxation can be levied anly in a
free country for public purposes. The
very essence of freedom is involved in
this. 1t is the marked and character
istic distinction between liberty and
despotism that the power of the State
shall not touch the property Of its citi-
zens except for the support of govern
ment, which is public purpose. Our
organic laws forbid the taking of pri-
vate property except for public pur-
poses and upon adequate compensa-
tion. " hen corporations require the
use of private property it is necessary
to confer on them by law the power to
condemn it, but this can only be done
if the purposes Of the corporation are
public. Taxes are a condemnation of
the property and effects of a citizen.
If they be not for public purposes the
exaction of them is the simplest des-
potism. So likewise it is to collect
them when the government does not
need the money. But when they are
imposed avowedly for the benefit of
private individuals, it ceases to be tax
alton and becomes simply robbery.
The Supreme Court has not hesitated
to say go.
The only question, therefore, which
remains to be considered is whether
or not protection has private pur-
pose to subserve or public one. What
is the first effect of a protective tariff,
and onwhom does it operate? This is the
proper test of its constitutionality.
The law will not judge it by its remote
and possible results. It is not lawful
to kill man in cold blood, althoue h
his taking off might be a great benefit
to his family and his neighbors the
act is murder. Well, the direct effect
of such tariff is to raise the price of
all foreign goods on which it is levied,
and of all similar goods owned by pri-
vate citizens. 1t operates upon all as
to taxation, but only part as to ben
efits; all pay out, but only a few re-
ceive back. Therefore, when it is lev
led for protection and not for revenue
that is, to enrich the individual and
not the public treasury-is that be not
a priuate purpose it is hard to con
cieve how language can describe such
a purpose as contra distinguished from
a public one. If one man only recei
we'd the benefit, every one would nat
urally admit that it was private; so
if only a hundred or a thousand
Well, where will you draw the line?
What number of benefciaries will
make an unconstitutional law consti-
tutional7 Does it depend on numbers
at all, or on the grant of power itself!
Ordinarily, one would say that accord
ing to Democratic usage it would be-
come a public purpose it shown that it
benefited clear majority of the peo-
pie, but this would be equally mad
missible. If the majority had the law
full power to tax the, minority for the
individual benefit Of the former, no
meaner robbery, no despotism more
true test of constitutionality is not to
be determined by the benefits confer
red, but by the rights destroyed by the
law. If q tariff law outrages the
rights of single citizen by taxing
him for the personal, individual bene-
fit of another citizen, it is violation
of the Constitution and SO, and for
still stronger reasons, it would be If
he were taxed for the personal enrich
ment of every citizen of the sixty mil
lions. 1t is true that even a revenue
tariff yields protection to the home
manufaci ures pro tanto; but that is an
accident which does not vitiate the
law, the intention OF which is to raise
revenue. 1t cannot be avoided, and
nobody wishes it avoided. Our ances-
tors had this in mind when they franz
ed our constitution they had it in
mind when they enacted our first rev.
enue laws, declaring that the neccssi-
ties of government would in this way
aid in the encouragement of manufac-
lures. They never dreamed of building
them up and supporting them by lay
ing taxes for that express purpose
without regard to the needs of the pub
lie treasury. That idea is the bastard
progeny Of modern greed, and can
trace its descent to none of the great
fathers-not even Alexander Hamil-
ton.
It may then be safely assumed that