The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1888-09-12
Is Protection Unconstitutional!

Frank Leslie's ia ono OF the few alleged indie
pendent papers which do not use that appel
lation IA special guise for the intensest type
of Democracy In its issue OF Aug. ii II very
ably discusses the question propounded IN the
above caption, and makes some apt criticisms
upon the absurd pretense of some OF the Demo
cratic leaders that they are not unfriendly TO
the protective system while at the same time
they maintain that protective duties are not
sane toned by the Constitution. The fol lowing
is its article
If che thing is settled more clearly than an
other H. ia that the Democratic party of late
years has not been friendly 10 either the princi-
pc or tue policy OF protection. In 1852, under
the Democratic leadership of Calh Jun they re-
belled in South Carolina against n protective tar
if and took steps to prevent its enforcement.
In 1861 hat part Of the Democratic party CO.
operating in forming the Confederate States de-
clared protective duties unconstitutional, ana
made protettjv tariff impossible under the
organic law Of the Confederate states. In 1881
the Democratic party of the Union, IN conven-
ton assembled, declared in favor OF n tariff
for revenue only Now, If duties on imports
are imposed for the purpose of revenue only,
they are manifesty not imposed for protection.
Influenced. doubtless, b. this declaration of
party faith. as we'll as by their peculiar educa-
tion, those accepted Democratic leaders, John
e.. Carlisle and Henry Wntterson, have
repeatedly affirmed, in speeches de,ive red
in this city and elsewhere, that all duties
imposed for protection wero unconstitutional
| Speaker Carlisle in IN elaborate addr So deliv-
cred before Tammuny Hall in the campaign of
! $780, argued at great length that tariff taxation
| for any other purpose than revenue was in clear
| violation or the COnStltu ION. Ana Mr.. w after
| son persisted in asserting in his newspaper for
| some years, that TO impose duties for the en-
| colragement and protection OF American manu-
facturers not only unconsti .ntional but
was downright robbery. Now, the loin5 we
! make Is this How Gun these Democratic lead
| ers be friendly 10 protection, as they now wish
| to make the people believe they are, when they
hold that protection for projections sake is I'M
constitutional? They either favor overriding
the Constitution or else they are hostile TO pro-
| lection as n principle, "a the Republicans as
| gert IL protection TO home industries rs rob
| berry as Mr.. WattersOn maintains then he 10
| either a robber or else an enemy OF protection,
"a the world knows. The Gu % recent attempt,
| therefore, TO make the people of this
| country believe that the Democratic party
| il not unfriendly to protective duties
| will prove failure. The leaders of that party
! have placed themselves too ofyon on the record
i'm favor Of the proposition that duties levied to
secure protection unconstitui iOnal, and
more than that, that they lega lied form OF
robbery. OF course n sufficient answ 10 al
this ignorant pretension is that all authorities
ON taxation hold that the taxing power OF tho
Government is unlimited, and that the purposes
for which taxes are imposed are discretionary
with Congress There IL the further overwhem
ing answer that the men who mnde the Constt
tuition, who composed largely the first Congr tss
dec ared i'm the first and md tarin acts, tina
they are passed for the discharge OF the debt
of the United States and the encouragement an'
protection OF manufactures. Wdsi ington
Hamilton. Madison, and Jefferson, who approves
of these protective acts, probably knsW wha
the Consti ution meant "a we'll as Mr. Waiter
son. aud worry respectable robbers, II al
protectionists belong 10 that class