St. Paul daily globe., 1892-09-11

where the maintenance of the national
integrity would demand active exertions
on the governments part to. establish
enterprises for supplying its inhabitants
with the necesSarieS of life. This was
the situation of the American colonies
at the time their independence was
established. They embraced a vast
extent of territory, with inadequate
means of communication and sparse
population. They we're separated
from Europe by an angry ocean.
which had not yet been subdued
to the uses of man. Both England and
France :sere hostile and insolent, and
peaceful trade relations with them inn
possible of steady maintenance.
Mr.. JEFFERSON displayed the spirit
of true craftsmanship in being guided
by sense of eXpediency rather than of
principle under such circumstances.
1t was quite right for our congress of
that time to do something that the
country might be in position to help
itself and assert its independence. The
preservation of the state is the states
highest duty, and when the preserva-
WIN VI OiS olatS Wdo al loOuO NIL OEF-
FERSoN was a protectionist because he
was patriot. But it is utterly false
to say that he believed in protection
in the cOntemporaneous meaning of
the word. He never said that the state
had any right to tax one man to enrich
another. as the McKinleyltes main
tain that it has. A leader in the revo-
lutiOnary struggle against class privi-
legeS would have been traitor to the
blood shed in that fight, had he cher
ished any such notions.
The point of Mr.. HARRIsoN's and
Mr.. BLAINE's allusion, however, is
probably intended to be found in its
connection with the tariff plank of the
Democracy's national platform. The
Democracy denOunceS protective tariff
as unconstitutional, and the GLOBE
takes it that they mean to show the
weakness of this view by calling atten-
tion to MIR. JEFFERsoN's position on
the subject. But there is absolutely
nothing in this. Even granting, for
the sake Of argument, that Mr.. JEFFER-
son believed in protection in the Re-
publican sense, his faith in the hereSy
would throw no light OH the meaning of
the constitution. Mr.. JEFFERSON took
no part in the framing of the consti-
tuition. He was absent in Europe at
the time the instrument was drawn. and
was widely out OF sympathy with the
intellectual complexion of its authors.
Mr. JEFFERSON was a disciple of the
school of ROUSSEAU, and thoroughly
permeated with the fantastic theories
of that erratic scholar. The great truths
of political economy, which ADAM
SMITH was celebrating during those
years to become the guide of the worlds
enlightenment, made but little impress
sion on his mind. He did noble work
Tor his country in many lines, but
among them is not included any mate
rial contribution to our organic law.
He was not protectionist. but, even if
he had been. it would not prove that
protectiOniSm is constitutional.
Mr.. HARRISON and Mr.. BLAINE
knowall this, because they are familiar
with the facts of American history. But
they are not superior to wlllful at
tempt to deceive when they think it will
help their cause. No protectionist ever
is. He has no use for the truth, because
the truth gives no encouragement to his
doctrines.