The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1883-1893, 1888-03-23
SENATOR VANCE'S
FiRST OF 4 SERIES OF ARTICLES
ON THE TARIFF.
| He Takes the Ground That a Protective
Tariff is Not Constitutional and Proves
His Propositions.

tarIH Is Not Constitutional and Proves
His Proposition.
Your request that should write series
Of articles for publication on purely eco
nOmic questions pertaining, among other
! things, to tariff taxation, has a signifi-
cance that, perhaps, did not occur to
you. 1t did to me, however, very strong
! ly. 1t reminded me that for the first time
IN quarter OF century the people Of the
United States were in the condition or the
temper to examine such questions upon
their merits and their bearing upon the
welfare of the people. During the excite
ment of war, of course such questions
could not be calmly di scussed, and during
all the turmoil and confusion which fol-
| lowed in the wake of war there was no
room for the consideration of these things
IN the public mind, nor have the bitter
ness and prejudice growing out of that
| strife permitted it until a very recent date.
That IA great newspaper, whose success
depends upon the skill with which it selects
and treats those topics most interesting to
the public, should make such a request as
YOU have made of me- is convincing proof
Of the gratifying fact that the day of eX-
citement and bitterness has passed away
and the time for calm reasoning about the
things which make our common good has
come.
The enormous system of taxation which
was inaugurated under the necessities of
a state of war, and which has been kept
alive and increased under the cover of the
prejudices growing out of that war, has
now TO be examined and criticised by the
impartial Judgment of the present genera
ton. This examination is to determine
| whether great economic questions shall be
dealt with in Il manner to satisfy the greed
of a class or for the best interest of the
great ma Ority.
AS our government IS one Of limited
powers, defined by IA written constitution,
and as our safety and prosperity on the
| whole depend mainly upon the faithful
observance OF these limitations, maintain
that it is the first duty of citizen, when
he undertakes to investigate for himself
the propriety Of our present tariff laws, to
consider whether or not they be conform
able to our constitution. There is no
doubt whatever that Congress has power
to impose tariff duties. The constitution
expressly confers it. The words are: Con
gress shall have power TO lay and collect
taxes duties impOStS and eXciseS, to pay
the debts and provide for the common de-
| fense and general welfare of the United
| States" But this grant of power is limi-
ted to certain purposes, as appears by
the language OF course it could levy and
collect taxes etc, for no other purpose
/ iGdu lUtSt utltlclltt, " VII, pay Tue
debts, provide for the common defense
and general welfare of the United States.
1t will be noticed that these are all public
purposes, and there is no intimatiOn what
ever of a power TO levy and collect taxes
for any private or individual purpose.
The DEBT" Of course, IS public. The de-
Tense is common. The welfare is general.
No one will deny that the object of this
power was to raise revenue, MONEY Whilst
It is not possible to draft a tariff bill in
such terms as would yield the precise
amount of revenue desired. yet it is suf
ticient compliance if the object of the law
be IN fact and truth to raise reyenue-ln
other words, is designed 10 effect either of
the public purposes mentioned III the con-
stitutlOn. The prOtectlOnlStS claim that
under the term general welfare tariff
may be lawfully framed, not to raise
enue. but to afford protection to the man
ufactuCers Of this country; that Is to say,
that ii is lawful to impose a tax upon for
eign products that W Il increase the price
Of their own products. They then 60 on
to argue in the usual way that the general
welfare Of the United States is provided
for bv providing for their citizens individ
ualy engaged IN certain pursuits, mas
much as their prosperity Will IN divers
ways rebound to the prosperity of all, &c,
and so on. 1t seems to me that this argu
ment is to be met at the threshold by an
absolute denial of its truth Congress is
authorized to lay and collect taxes in or
der that with the money so derived it may
pay the debts, provide for the common de
fense and general welfare. These objects
are to be effected with the money results
of taxation, and not by any method of
levying taxes. They ale to provide for
the general welfare with the cash collected
and placed in the treasury, not by so ar
ranging the law for levying taxes as that
no taxes shall be collected or by any other
collateral results. The general power of
enacting laws to further the purposes of
the federation are to be found in other
parts of the constitution and not under
the head Of taxing power. They are all
contained in the remaining clauses of sec
ton Z, article 1. Clearly, if you could
! not devote the money collected under a
tariff law to the object in question, you
!, cannot lawfully make the method of its
collection serve the purpose as primary
object For still stronger reason, you
cannot effect the object by prohibiting the
collection of money under tariff law.
The constitution says ''lay and collect
taxes, &c, to do certain things. A pro-
: tective tariff says ''lay" taxes so as not to
collect" and provide for the general
welfare in that way. That is, the taxing
power is properly exercised when used to
defeat itself.
Therefore to lay and collect taxes on
. foreign goods for the purpose of increasing
= the price of goods in the hands of a citi-
zen would not be constitutional unless you
could apply the money thus collected for
the same purpose-admitting that the
: tariff permits some to be collected. When
= it permits none to be collected, being placed
( so high as to prohibit foreign lmportations,
), surely 40 one would pretend that the law
could be justified under this taxing clause
:, of the constitution. Nor can it be sus
: tanned under the third clause, which gives
. Congress power to regulate commerce
+ with foreign nations, for this would be tt
. destroy, not to regulate, and a power tC
regulate is not power to destroy Those
who advocate a tariff for protection, there
q fore, claim in effect that Congress has th'
power to lay taxes which are not to bt
COLLECTED, in order to provide for th'
general welfare, and to defeat PRO TANTt
or IN TOTO the object for which the taxing
, power was granted.
!, They are also in the wrong equally, i
n seems to me, in asserting that protection
IS can be one Of the purposes of the taxin.
% power at all. 1t has been decided AGAR