Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1888-08-22
MoRE TARIFF LORE.
Communicated

ICOmmuaicaveu
 A writer in the morning heooominai of Prescott, yclept the Prescott Nom ing Courier" under date ot August I3' says, that McG 'falls to oontroVeit the statement made in ,he Courier of the 2d, that the republican party has changed front on the tariff question" :"
 The writer, in that article, it remem- Der correctly. simply asserts, that the re publican party had changed sides on this tariff question.
 Assertion, without facts to suostan- tiate them, gre of little value, to thinking minds. and for me 10 have sad that the party had not changed its policy on tn's subject. would have subjected me to the same criticism, of which the said writer himself is guilty.
 The assertion that the republican party has changed its policy, on the principle Of tariff for protection IS so at variance with truth and the current his- tory of the times. that denial of would, to all sensible men. be work of supererogation.
 It is no doubt true, that there may be . few disgruntled Thomas C. Sheafman republicans, who may have changed front" but that is no evidence that the republican party has changed Its base, from a trrif for protection, to that Of one for revenue only."
 Further the writer under review, says: "McG is right when he says the com promise bill of 1853. on the tariff ques- tion, provided for gradual reduo'ion ct custom taxes, to a revenue basis, and he might have added that Henry Clay de- clared in I842 when urging inc protec- tive tariff of that year, that few more years of protection-he limited It to ten YsaEs-was necessary to place our infant industries upon solid basis so as to compete with the pauper I"or Of Eu- rope"
 Tbe only point made, or intended to make in that article, was 10 correct the error of the writer in saying the con- promise tariff, of which he was writing occurred in IS42, as he asserted; nor did intimate that the tariff of 1853 by its ''sliding scale" was fright" or that by bringing the tariff to simple revenue standard was fright"
 Thomas c. Shearman. "one 9l-the leadiRs>..e ing >..epub.:::c.iis of New York;" does admit that the tariff of I7S9. twas foi- loved by an increase Of P'o2perity. Be tt remembered, too, that that tariff, m its preamble stated that, ''whereas IL IS necessary tor the support Of government, for the discharge of the government of the United States, and for the encour- aeement and protection of manufactures, that duties be paid on imported goods, wares and merchandise"
 Here, then, we have one instance, where prosperity followed" the enact ment of protective tariff.
 Another thing about this protective ariH of I789 should be carefully noted, and particularly call the attention of the critic of McG to ii (whe,her his name begins with the first or last letter Of the alphabet,) that the supporters of that protective tariff were men who partici- pated tn forming cur admirable cor ssitution, men of large views, and upon | economic question were the equals at least of President Cleveland, Speaker Carlisle. Henry Watterson or the critic of McG.
 The democratic party of to-day, claim | to he disciples of Thos. Jefferson.
 Nov MT. Madison was one of the ! leaders in framing the act of I7S9, and 1t is we'll known that he belonged to the | Jeffersonian school of politics of that | day, was afterwards secretary of state | during Jefferson's administration. It IS not at all likely that Mir. Jefferson would | have selected as his first officer in the l cabinet, a man who was opposed to him on such an important economic question of state craft as protection to manu- | factures
 could not have added that Henry Clay declared in IS4,, when urging the | protective tariff of that year, that few more years of proteCtlon-ten years was necessary etc, because l do not believe Mir. Clay ever said anything of the kind. In my copy of his speeches of that year, find no intimation what, ever of like sentiment.
 The writer's affirmation. that Mir. Clay | did say so. and my denial theieof raises as the lawyers say, an issue. and having | the affirmative must prove H.
 Theory is very good when we have no fact or facts to controveri 1t, but one we'll authenticated fact IS worth multitude of theories
 1t is . fact that general prosperity fol- lowed the first protective tariff act, passed tn I7S9. and signed on the 4th day of July of that year, by him who was first ie val, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen."
 In 1868 a prohibitory tariff existed. se are told. Of course if we prohibited all importat,ons, and had no internal revenue. necessarily, disaster would en- sue, but in 1909 prohibition was re- peased, and prosperity was renewed. So says our sapIent critic.
 These acts, clearly show the wisdom o( protection. |
 Iu 1872, to 1873, was the second war of independence. between England and the United States, and the customs laid in the former year, were to meet ahe evisenies Oi the war were necesSa !