New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-14
done over by Board in which far higher de-
gree of confidence will doubtless be feit thah
The trustees have been able to inspire.
ppnrrc1I0N CONSTITU7IONAL.


PROTECTION CONSTITUTIONAL.
Nv schtt,s argument on the tariff question
differs from most others. In these days OF
practical craftsmanship it is by most men 'ahcn
for granted that it is useless to discuss ,ne con
Nitutionality of practice inauguraieu Dy .he
trainers of the Constitution and continued oy
them and their successors ever since. But MT.
Scott couceiyes that it is proper to deny that
tho men who framed the Constitution knew
what il meant, or else to affirm that tney'
knowing what the Constitution meant, dehper-
atelv disobeyed it. His argument Is thai we
have no bower to lay tax which, by eSciuaihg
the article taxed, defeats the object OF taxauon'
namely revenue for the support OF govern
mant.D This necessarily includes every duty
which tends to shut cut any part OF the possible
;nnortatiou. rs well as any duty which tends TO
sb,,t ont all importation Of any article For IL
"a clearly az unconstitutional to impose
dn,v which shuts out the wool costing over
twenty cents per pound abroad, while aaihit.ins
ell other wool. as to impose duty "hich SINUS
ont the wool of any other quality or cost. MT.
Scott does not perceive that his logic would
'ord him in the emhrres Of Mr.. Henry George
who afirms that every duty on imports is
wrongful. Yet the reasoning OF Mr. Scott
nressed to its only logical conclusion, has pre-
c;selv that effect. ANY and every duty that
con he ,mposed must exclude some part OF the
nossible importation. If the exclusion OF the
whole is unconstitutional, the exclusion oil any
mart is equally unconstitutional. Hence, II the
dutv excluding the whole OF given product Is
beyond the taxing power of the government
every duty on imports is equally beyora us
taxing power.
put MIR. Scott endeavors to forify his po-
sition by misrepresentation or a mSunacr-
standing of the early history OF the u0verh-
ment. He ai1irms that Alexander hamilton
{" in the Administration of Washington en-
deavored. to build up business ariStocracy as
an important part Of his projected government
of corruption and splendor," and that Mr.. Jei-
ferson affirmed that the indirect subsidizing OF
manufacturing industries " involved the sub
version of our whole republican system" ms
issue, Mr.. Scott af1lrms, "was determined IN
1900 by the American people in favor OF JET
ferson and the Constitution. 1t has never sihcc
been determined otherwise when naRedly pre-
seutedv II is curious that this revival OF an
ancient but well-nigh obsolete notion shouid
appear, in the carefully prepared address Oh
Democratic leader representing the Admins
tration. so shortly after the publication of inn
nortant historical works clearly demonstrating
liz unsoundness. Mr.. Mason's Short Tariff
History.n and the "History Of the Tariff" by
the Hon. r. w. Thompson, both set forth with
great cearness the positions OF leading states
men during the earlier years OF tie RepuDhc
in regard to the tariff, and make 1t clear that
Mr.. SCOTS statement entirely misrepresents
Mr.. Jefferson and his associates, as well as
Washington, Hamilton and those who acted
with them.
The first act passed by the Ist Congress and
signed by President Washington imposed
duties, as its preamble expressly declares, Tor
the encouragement and protection OF manu-
features" Mr.. Jefferson's hearty support OF
that and other measures of the same character
cannot be disputed. His official messages might
be quoted at great length to show how fully be
Endorsed the principles Of protection. Thus In
his message Of 1906, discussing surplus
revenue, he asked, "Shall we suppress the i'm
posts and give that advantage to foreign over
domestic manufactures ?' His manner of stat
ing the question sufficiently indicates the an
swer which Dir. Jefferson gives, and in other
messages he even went so far as to JUSTLY
absolute prohibition Of imports in aid OF manu-
features. Thus in his message Of 1909 he con-
graduated the country upon the development
of manufactures under the auspices Of pro-
tecting duties and prohibitions" Mr.. Scott
has misread the history of the country. From
the earliest period the question has been, not
one of constitutionalty, but one of expediency.
The trainers of the Constitution disputed
among themselves whether this Or that duty
was wise; but with scarcely an exception they
agreed that the imposition of duties for the
purpose Of encouraging home industries was
clearly within the power of the Government.