The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-08-13

Franz LssiiSs Iiatrrtcd Newspaper tDn.l
II one thing is settled more clearly
than another, it is that the Democratic
party of late years have not been friend
" to either the principle or the policy
OF Protection. In 1889, under the Dem
ocratic leadership OF Calhoun, they re-
beiied in South Carolina against pro.
tective tariff, and took steps to prevent
its enforcement. In 1861, that part OF
the Democratic party cooperating i'll
forming the Confederate States declared
protective duties unconstitutional, and
made protective tariff impossible
under the organic law OF the Confederate
States. In 1880, the Democratic party
OF the Union, in convention assembled,
declared in favor of "a tariff for revenue
only" Now, il duties on imports are
imposed for the purpose Of revenue
only, they are manifestly not imposed
for Protection.
Influenced, doubtless, by this declara.
ton OF party faith, as well as by their
peculiar education, those accepted Dem.
ocratic leaders, John G.. Carlisle and
Henry Watterson, have repeatedly al
tirmed, in speeches delivered in this city
and elsewhere, that all duties imposed
Tor protection were unconstitutional.
Speaker Carlisle, in an elaborate address
delivered before Tammany Hall in the
campaign OF 1880, argued at great length
that tariff taxation for any other purpose
than revenue was in clear violation OF
the Constitution. And Mr.. WatteBon
persisted in asserting in his newspaper,
for some years, that TO impose duties for
the encouragement and protection OF
American manufacturers was not only
unconstitutional, but was downright
robbery.
Now, the point we make is this:
How can these Democratic leaders be
friendly to protection, us they now wish
to make the people believe they are,
when they hold that protection for pro.
tection's sake Is unconstitutional? They
either favor overriding the Constitution,
or else they are hostile to protection us
principle, as the. Republicans assert.
II protection to home industries is "rob.
berry" us Mr.. WattersOn maintains, then
he is either rObber or else is an enemy
Of protection, us the world knows. The
quite recent attempt, therefore, to make
the people OF this country believe that
the Democratic party is not unfriendly
to protecting duties will prove a failure
The leaders OF that party have placed
themselves too often on the record in
favor of the proposition that duties lev.
led to secure protection are uncOnstitu-
tional, and, more than that, that they
are a legalized form OF robbery.
OfCourse, sufficient answer TO all this
ignorant pretension is, that all authori.
ties on taxation hold that the taxing
power OF the Government is unlimited,
and that the purposes for which taxes
are imposed are discretionary with Con,
gress. There is the:further overwhelm,
ing answer, that the men who made the
Constitution, who composed largely the
First Congress- declare, in the first and
second Tariff Acts, that they are passed
for "the discharge of the debts OF the
United States and the encouragement
and protection OF manufactures"
Washington, Hamilton, Madison and
Jefferson, who approved OF these Pro-
teCtive Acts, probably knew what the
Constitution meant as well as Mr.. Wat
tcrson, and We're very respectable rob
beers" il all Protectionists belong to that
plaSg