New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-10-06
MR.. CURTIS ON FREE TRADE.
ANOTHER LETTER FROM THE EMINENT
DEMOCRAT.

HE, SHOWS THE ABsURDITY OF TIE DEMOCRATIC
pos1rIoN-rns CONVINCING STATEMENT.
George Ticknor Curtis the eminent Democratic
constitutional lawyer and author, has added an
o.bcr 70 his series of letters repudiating the
Free Trade views of the Democratic platform and
the candidates Of TIE Democratic party. Follow
inr is his clear statement of convincing facts
and arguments:
Eiclhcld springs. n. V, Sept. 10, 1902
To The Editor of The American Economist
Sir: That protective tariff is unconsuutihA Is
NOT genuine Democratic doctrine IL is Calhoun
ism and rank Calhountsm, too. Gut even MI
Calhoun ia not at first question the constitutional
authority OF Congress when laying duties on foreign
products TO discriminate in favor of American indus
tios lie voted for the tariff OF 1915, which was
Highly protective, and il not until 1880 that he
saonted the idea o! protective tariff being unconst
tS1onal.
differ entirely from senator Hill IN regard to the
proper method OF interpreting the Constitution Of the
United states 1t is true tIat II does not say IN 50
macy words the Congress shall have power TO pro
e,ct American manufacturers" But 1t does SLY in
e1 press terms that the Congress snail nave power
70 Law and collect taxes duties imposts AID excise5'
and it is TO &c Interpreted by the Application CT to
The express power is power 70 lay taxes duties
n.poSts and excuses to dtfray the expenses OF The
Government. The incidental power is a power to
so lay them as to protect and encourage our own
irdu,tries The express power would be useless
without the incidental power, for without the eNer
else Of the after, the people Of this country could
not be in condition 70 meet the expenses OF ttir
Government. Senator Ill., like many Democrats OF
the present day. suppOses that because the consul
tuition Goes not say In express terms that the Con-
gross sIsll have power 70 protect american manu-
factres,7 protective tariff Is not within lis consltu
tiona power. This is what comes Of interpreting
the Constitution without iavng the Ii owedRc neces
sary to Interpret correctly Apparently, ,enat9 I'M
has never read the first revenue law Of the tinted
states passed In 1884, the debate In the FIRST House
of Representatives when II was under discussion. .
III that House there ten members VINO hau
been members Of the convention which framed the
Constitution Mr.. Madison the leader on the
floor and be conducted the first bill through
the House. Washington President Of the United
states Hamilton Secretary Of the Treasury. JEFF
fcrson was Secretary OF State. and Edmund Randolph
was Attorney G eneral If those four men did not
know for what purpose the first revenue law was
enacted and why it was made highly protective
tariff. l beg 10 ask who did know! The record
shows. - .
Let me now place side by side the antiProectnn
plank In the Democratic platform. and the preamble
Of the act OF 1859: and here let me ask my Demo-
cratic readers whether cxIresldent Cleveland Sena-
Tor Ill., and other leaders of the Democratic party Mt
lie present day are better eNpOneIs of the COnsti-
tuition than Madison, Washington. Hamilton, Je'Icr-
son Randolph and the generation Of men who esab-
lished it,