The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1888-09-15
Is Protection Unconstitutional /,

Frank LesIie'S is one of the few alleged indie
pendent papers which do not use that appel
lation as a special guise for the intens st ype
of Democracy. In its issue of Aug. IL IL very
ably discusses the question propoundCd in the
above caption, AMI makes some apt criticisms
upon the absurd pretense Of some OF the Demo
cratic leaders that they not unfriendiy to
the protective system, while ut the same time
they main ain that protective duties Gve no.
snnc ioncd by the Constitution. The fol owing
If On thing s ssttIel more clearly than an
O her !. is that the Democratic percy Of late
wears las not hs n fri andly 10 e.the III in !
p e OF e policy OF protection. In 1892. under
he democratic leadership of Cath IN, they re-
lelleI in South Carolina agains- protectiA tRr-
III, and took steps to prevent its enforcement.
In 1861 hat part # the Democrat party
Op sTa ing in ftrming the Confederate States de-
Ella, ed protective duties unconstitutional ana
mn 3c project We tariff impossible under the
. 'ca.i i, law of the Confederate States. In 1881
The DemCcra party Of the Union, in cUnyen-
tiur assembled, decl .rgd III favor of q tariff
fof revenue only. Now, if duties on imports
are imposed for he purpose OF reyenu: only
they are mauifestly not IMPOSED TO- prutc1 ton.
Influenced. doubt IS, b. this declaration of
party faith, well as by Their peculiar eduaa-
tioH, those accepted Democratic leaders, John
G.. Car sic ami Henry Watteseon, have
repeatedly affirmed, in speeches de IL rel
il this city and elsewhere, that ali duties
iril osed Tor protection were unconstitutional.
Speaker Carlisle, i'll an elaborate addr SIS deliy-
cred before Tammany Hall in the campaign Of
1850, argued AT great length thai tariff taxation
for any Other purpose than revenue was in Gear
son persis ed in asserting in his newspaper, for
some yolrs, thut 10 impose dutiei Tor the IN
couraGement and protection of AmeTi III mn
facturers was nos only unconsi ntioual, but
was downright robbery. Now, the ONT we
make is this: How can these DcmoaIa ic lead
ers be friendly to protection, they now wish
to make the pc pie believe they are, when they
bold that protection for projections Axe is I'M
constitutional They either favor oFer.i ng
the Constitution, else they hostile TO pro-
lection s principle, the Republicans as
sert If protection TO home industries rs rob
bery,' rs Mr.. Watterson maintains. then h ia
either rObbtT or else an enemy Of protection
he world knows The gu tie recent attempt
therefore, to make the people OF Ia
country believe that the Democratic party
is not unfriendly to pTotectie duties
will prove n failure. The leaders OF tLct party
have placed thsms dives too of5eu on tha record
in favor of Incorporation TINT duties LEVIED to
secure protet ton are Cncops.itu ipua', and,
more than that, that they are n lega led IN of
robbery. OF course Il sufh, lent nsW ia al
this ignorant pretension is that all an EcIi les
on taxation hold that the taxing row OF the
Government is unlimited. and that ths IrFoses
with Congress. There il the further oye.wLe m
ing answer that the men who made the Consti-
tuition, who composed lsrgely the first CoDgr IS,
declared, in the first and second tariff Is. thlt
they are passed for 'ths discharge OF tire debts
of the United States and the encouragement and
protection of manufs ctureS. Was i1gtOn,
Hamilton, Madison, and feiferso1 y no proved
Of these protective acts, prohaS j What
tie Consti ulion meant a well rs Nj = tier
son, and were very respectable 10 Der +, II ell
protectiUnists belong to that class.