The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-01-09
Pcrycrting History.

The advocates of monopoly tariff are
either very ignorant OF the history of their
country, or not at all scrupulous ABOUT
perverting it. For instance, the Journal,
a day or two ago, in an article upon Presi-
dent CLEvELAND's letter to the Tariff Re-
form club of Boston, said:
Nothing in the entire range of CLEvELAND's
ignorance is more remarkable than his assump-
ton that the constitution was framed and the
early administration OF the government con-
Quoted in the interest of free trade. He is for
prating about "Ihe sentiments in which
uur Institutions had their origin" about our
departure from the purity of purpose" which
characterized the fathers, and that sort of
thing The people whose ignorance he Ia
t0ents are not yet 50 beSotted but they can
read, and history tells them that Mr.. CLEvE-
LANDS assumption in this regard is utterly un-
true. One Of the main objects of the trainers
81 the constitution, and one of the strongest
~ uments IN favor OF Its adoption was to &C.
n policy of national protection and de-
velopment. The fathers all favored protec-
tive tariff. One of the first acts of the first
congress was can act for laying q duty on
goods, wares and merchandise imported into
the United States" All the early history OF
the government was identified with the pro-
lection OF American industry. The departure
from the spirit of the constitution began when
the southern wing of the democratic party
began 10 agitate and advocate free trade and
II continued TO depart till II brought on the
war. The republican party, by re-establishing
the protective tariff policy on firm basis, has
restored the constitution to its original intent
and purpose. These are facts known 10 most
people, but evidently not to Mr.. CLEVELAND.
When he goes out of Office. If he has time he
should read the history of the United States.
We don't know whether this is ignor
snce or dishonesty or mixture OF both.
We do know that it is not true. 1t is es-
Ientially false that zone of the main OBJ
iects of the trainers of the constitution and
one OF the strongest arguments in favor of
its adoption was to secure a policy of
national protection The constitution
was adopted in 1889, and in that very
year, JAMES MADISON, 'the father OF the
constitution" maintained the principle OF
free exchange. All of his prominent CO.
lsborers in the work OF framing the con-
stitution were in harmony with him upon
this subject except ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
IL is quite true that one of the first meas
ures passed by the first congress was an
act imposing duties on imports. But this
was a revenue bill, passed to meet the i'm
mediate necessities OF the government,
and protective considerations had little 10
do with it. They were so little regarded
indeed, that MADISON letters to J JEFFERSON,
then in Paris, in which he describes
the debates on this tariff act, contain no
ailusion whatever to the question of pro-
lection. This enactment of "the fathers"
70 which the Journal appeals, fixed the
general level of duties at only per cent.
ad valorem, fact which clearly shows that
revenue, not protection, was the chief OBJ
ject of the act. On certain articles of lux
ury somewhat higher duties were levied,
but the highest was Is per cent, on car
riages. There was doubtless an element
of protection in the specific duties i'm
posed upon such commodities as hemp,
cordage, nails, manufactured iron and
glass. but It was very slight. In this act,
as in all the revenue legislation prior to
1916, the protection idea was almost en-
tirely ignored.
1t is now one hundred years since the
constitution was adopted. The new re-
public, exhausted by its long struggle for
independence, with little capital and no
credit, and with very few manufactures
lard those in their infancy, was certainly
more in need of protection" against the
industrial nations of Europe than it
ever has been since. Yet WASHING
Ton, JEFFERsoN, MADISON. FRANKLIN,
ADAMS and their associates deemed a
schedule of duties averaging but per
cent. adequate both for revenue
and protection. From 1850 until
since the late war no American
statesman Of distinction, unless it was
HAMILTON. ever advocated a high pro-
tective tariff as a permanent national
policy The system of tariff taxation, now
upheld by the republican party, is a
violent departure from the principles as
well as practices of the founders of the re-