The Portland daily press., 1888-08-11
The constItutIonaIIty of protection.

The Hon. William L. Putnam in several
speeches delivered since he has become
candidate for governor, has hinted with
out directly expressing such an opinion, that
protection was unconstitutional. Yesterday
the Argus quoted the opinion of United
States court denying the right Of the city Of
Topeka to contribute 100000 to build fac
tory in that city, and deduced from that the
opinion that members of Congress who vote
for protective tariff are robbers But
the Argus say the people have no rem
edy against the robbers" except in the
ballot. II however protective tariff is un-
constitutional, there is a clear remedy In the
courts. and II protective tariff Is also rob
berry, as the Argus alleges. then not only law
but equity is on the side of the advocates of
tariff for revenue only. Why not then APP
peal to the courts? Simply because the free
traders know that they would be sustained
neither in law nor in equity. They know
that the authorities are against them. f9Eal
The question Of the constitutionallty Of a
protective tariff is not a new one. 1t has
been raised many times of late years. But it
is significant fact that for good many years
after the constitution was formed, though
the subject Of protection was frequently
before Congress it was never seriously raised
at all. With the men who made the constitu
tion the constitutionality of protection was
undoubted When the tariff bill Of 1889 was
under discussion in the House of Representa-
tives Mr.. Madison, who had been one of the
trainers of the constitution, was a member of
that body. Mr.. Madison made an exhaust
i've argument in favor OF that tariff bill which
was a protective as well as a revenue meas
ure. There had been no serious denial of the
constitutional power of Congress to protect
industries by tariff and therefore Mr..
Madison did not directly discuss that ques-
tion. But he clearly indicated his opinion
on that subject in the following paragraph
which is taken from his speech
There is another consideration. The States
that are most advanced in population and ripe for
manufactures ought 10 have their particular in
terests attended to In some degree. While these
OF trade, they had the power TO protect and cher
ish such institutions. BY adopting the present
power into other hands They must have done one
this with the expectation that their interests
would not be neglected.
Here is an assertion not only of the consti-
tuti0nal power of Congress to foster manu.
features but also of the duty of Congress
to do it. Under the confederation each State
had had the power to protect its own man
ufactures; but when the confederation was
abandoned this power was turned over to
Congress, and in the opinion of Mr.. Madison
not only could Congress use it, but also was
bound touseit. Nobody in that Congress COM
posed as it was Of men who helped frame the
constitution denied this proposition of Mr..
Madison. Again in 1928 when some opposi-
ton was being made to protection on the
ground of unconstitutionality Mr.. Madison
declared. after reiterating the above argu-
ment, that "a further evidence Of the consti-
tutional power Of Congress to protect and
foster manufactures by regulation Of trade,
ian evidence that ought itself to settle the
question: Is the uniform and practical sane
tum given to that power for nearly forty
years." -
Alexander Hamilton was member of
Washington's Cabinet. Mr.. Hamilton do
clared that protective tariff was "necessa-
ry for the support Of the government and
for the encouragement of manufactures ,,
Obviously Alexander Hamilton had net dis
covered that protection was unconstitution-
al.
Thomas Jefferson was member of WASH
ington's Cabinet and was quite as familiar
with the constitution as the modern Ameri-
can free trade doctrinaries Mr.. Jefferson
in 1918, commenting upon a pamphlet in
which direct protection to home manufac-
lures was advocated used this language:
have read with great satisfaction the eloouent
pamphlet you were so kind as to send me and
sympathize with every line OF it.
And then he proceeds at length to argue in
favor Of the policy of fostering manufac
lures. Evidently Mr.. Jefferson had not
learned that protection was unconstitutional.