The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-10-06
GEO. TICKNOR CURTIS.
The Third Letter from the Great
Constitutional Lawyer.
CONSTITUTION AND TARIFF.
Bome Hard Nuts for the Democratic Free
Traders to Crach = senator Hin and
Ex-President Cleveland Given a Lesson
In History-A Deadly Parallel.
ESPECIAL TO THE NEWS,

NEW YORK, Oct. 6-The third In a
series OF letters by George Ticknor Curtis,
eminent Democratic constitutional law
yer aud author, giving his reasons for
repudiating the tariff views of the demo
cratic platform and the candidates who
stand upon it. appears to-day. The letter
is addressed to the editor of the american
Economist
That protective tariff is unconstitu-
tional is not genuine Democratic doctrine.
1t is Calhounism, and rank Calhounism,
too. But even Mr.. Calhoun did not at
first question the constitutional author
ity of Congress when laying duties on
foreign products TO discriminate in favor
of American industries. He voted for
the tariff OF 1916 which was highly pro-
tective, aud It was not until 1880 that he
adopted the idea of a protective tariff be-
ing unconstitutional.
differ entirely from Senator Hill in
regard to the proper method OF interpret
ing the Constitution OF the United States.
1t Is true that il does not say in SO many
words 1.-THE Congress shall have power
to protect American manufactures.
But IL does not say III express terms that
''the Congress shall have power TO lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts anu ex-
cises." This is one OF the express powers
of the Constitution and IL is TO be inter
preted by the application Of the rule
which is applied TO all the other express
powers. The express power is power To
lay taxes, duties, imposts and excises to
defray the expenses of the Government.
The Incidental power is power TO so lay
them as TO protect and encourage
our own industries. The express
power would be useless without the
Incidental power. for without the exer-
else of the latter the people of this coun-
try could not De in "a condition to meet
the expenses of their government Sena-
tor Hill, like many Democrats of the
present day, supposes that because the
Constitution does not say In express
terms that 'the Congress shall have
power to protect American manufac-
lures" a protective tariff is not within its
constitutional power. This ~ what comes
of interpreting the Constitution without
having the knowledge necessary TO in
terpret correctly. Apparently Senator
Hill has never read the first revenue law
OF the United States, passed in 1889. or
the deba In the first House of Represen-
tatives when il was under discussion.
In that house there were ten members
who had been members of the convention
which framed the Constitution. Mr..
Madison was the leader on the floor. and
he conducted the first revenue bill
through the House. Washington was
President of the United States; HamiI-
ton was secretary OF the treasury; Jeffer-
son was secretary OF state, and Edmund
Randolph was attorney-generaL IL those
four men did not know for what purpose
the first revenue law was enacted, and
why it was made highly protective
tariff. beg to ask, Who did knowf The
record shows.
Let me now place side by side the anti
protection plank in the Democratic plat
form. ana the preamble OF the act of 1889;
and here let me ask my Democratic read
ers whether ex-President Cleveland, Sen
ator Hill, and other leaders of the Demo-
cratic party, at the present day, are bet
ter exponents of thee onstitution than
Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Jeffer-
son, Randolph and the generation OF men
who established it.: