The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1892-10-28
r4EARauMENT FoRPRoTEcTloN

Argu4-LeaQ6r. line LeuUu dmouu-
ment to the constitution reads as fol-
lows: ssThe powers not delegated to
the United States by the constitution
nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively or to
the people," To levy duties whose OBJ
iect is to enable certain manufacturers
to charge the consumers OF the nation
higher prices than they would natur.
allyp is not among the delegated
powers and is therefore unwarranted by
the constitution.
Protection is unconstitutional, yet
we have waited all these years to find
it out.
Protection is unconstitutional, yetthe
very first real legislation by the very
first congress, made up in large part
Of the very men who framed the consti-
tuition, was protective act.
Protection is unconstitutional, yet in
a speech at Albany in 1874, Daniel
Webster, the greatest expounder of the
constitution this country has ever
known, said:
defy the man in any degree CONVEX
SAINT with the history, in any degree ac-
Quainted with the annals of this coun-
try from 1887 to 1889, when the consti-
tuition was adopted. to say that protec-
ton of American labor and industry
was not leading, 1 might almost say
the leading motive, south as we'll as
north, for the formation of the new
government. Without that provision
in the constitution it never could have
been adopted.
Protection is unconstitutional, yet
the United States Supreme court
affirmed its constitutionality years ago.
Protection is unconstitutional, yet
George Ticknor Curtis, one of the
ablest constitutional lawyers of the
present time, says:
That protective tariff is unconstitu-
tional is not genuine Democratic doc
trine. 1t is Calhounisln, and rank Cal
hounism, too. But even Mr.. Calhoun
did not at first question the constitu-
tional authority ofcongress, whenlaying
duties on foreign products ito discrimin-
ate in favor of American industries. He
voted for the tariff of 1916, which was
highly protective, and it was rot until
1880 that he adopted the idea of o pro-
tective tariff being unconstitutional.
differ entirely from Senator Hill
in regard to the proper method OF
Interpreting the constitution of the Uni
ted States. Apparently Sen
ator Hill has never read the first reve-
nue. law of the United States passed in
1889, or the debate in the first house Of
representatives when it was under dis
cussion.
In that house there were ten mem
bers 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 o1
the United States, Hamilton was secre,
tary of the treasury. Jefferson was sec
retary of state and Edmund Randolph
was attorney general.
Like authorities might be quoted
from almost without limit, but those
given ought to be sufficient. We dc
not expect them to change the opinion
of the Argus-Le but they oug hit tt
suffice for ordinary, everyday minds. L
is a common Democratic resort-anl
generally a last resort-to cry sit il
unconstitutional" when other argumen
fails against Republican policies. Blu
that cry can avail nothing in this cam
paign, for history refutes it. The con
stitution is not bugbear. to the Ameri
can people as whole. They agree
with the brilliant but erratic Ingall.
when he said: s'We respect, we revere
the constitution but we are not afraic
i of it."
MITCHELL REPUBLICANS: 1t has, b,
the passage of the Mckinley bill witt
its reciprocity clause, provided a larger
4 and steadier market for the food pro
4 ducts of the western farmer.
Argus-Leader: If that is SO surely
The REPUBLICAN can point out tt
what country the reciprocity clause has
I doomed the export of farm produce
even if it cannot state any comprehen
4 sive argument for protection.
We quote from the American Econo
mist as to what the Mckinley law ha.
done:
N 1. 1t has saved to the American far
Ii mer home market for his barley
II worth over S., ,O00. 900 yearly.
n 2. It has saved to the American far
81 mer a home market for his tobacco
worth 81, 900, 900 yearly.
8. 1t has saved to the American far
y mer home market for his potatoes
amounting to 1900, 900 yearly.
4. 1t has saved to the American
&poultry raiser home market for hi.
beggs, an ounting to 81, 100000 yearly.
5. It mas saved to the American frui
grower home market for his raisins
This prunes, nuts and other fruits, worth
&5. .250, 900 u year.
6. It has saved the American WOO
&grower from utter ruin by protecting
him from disastrous competition witt
Eyoreign Scent wool, keeping the price
pf American wool at an average of 30;
cents per pound by comparison with a,
Syerage of 1871 cents per pound: a
shown by quotations of similar grade
HAt corresponding dates in Philadelphia
gSnd London. Difference in favor OF th'
&protected American wool grower, 49,
¢s per pound.
And again from the same paper as t.
that rnci nrocity has done: