Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1892-08-18

,azAasF
be fundamental principle OF the Demo
cratic party that tho Federal government
has no constitutional power to impose or
collect tariff duties, except for the purpose
of revenue only"
This is merely paraphrase OF Cleve-
lands message OF 1887. Here is a spec'
men of it: "But our present tariff laws,
the vicious, inevitable, illogical source of
needless taxation, ought to be at once
revised and amended. These laws, as
their plan and primary effect, raise the
price to the consumer OF the imported
goods by precisely the sum paid as du-
ties"
Probably Cleveland has forgotten that
the people in the '8S election decided
that our present tariff is neither wi
cious, inequitable nor Illogical" and that
they relegated him back to state of
inocuous desuetude for enuncating such
doctrines. What wonderful lovers of the
constitution these latter day very latter day
Democrats have become. But let US see
how their ideas compare with the fathers
of the republic and of the constitution.
In the first congress under the constitu-
ton the second act which was passed
July 4, 1889, and approved by President
Washington, July 81, 1889, bears The fol-
lowing caption
CHAPTER II.
Gan act for laying duty on goods,
wares and merchandise imported into
tho United States"
"Sec. |. Whereas it is necessary Tor
the support of the government, Tor the
discharge of debts of the United States
and the encouragement and protection OF
manufactures, that duties be laid on goods,
wares and merchandise imported"
Article 7, of the constitution, provides
that "the ratification of the conventions
of nine states shall be sufficient for the
establishment of this constitution between
the states ratifying the same" New
Hampshire ratified on June q, l7SS, she
being the ninth state. Congress met
March 4, 1889, and on July 4, 1889, a
little over year after the ratification OF
the constitution, the above act was passed,
being almost Coeval with the adoption OF
the organic law James Madison, the
father OF that great instrument, was also
the father of protection, he having IN
troduced the above and advocated its
passage, and nearly forty years thereafter
to wit, in 1928, this great statesman IN his
old age reiterated the well settled opinions
of bis early manhood in the following
vigorous language:
"That the encouragement of manutac'
turers was an object Of power to regulate
trade is proved by the use made OF The
power for that object in the first session
of the first congress under the constitu-
ton, when among the members present
there were so many who had been MEM
bers of the federal convention which
framed the constitution and of the state
conventions which ratified it each OF
these classes consisting also OF members
who opposed and who had espoused the
constitution in its actual form. 1t does
not appear from the printed proceedings
of congress on that occasion that the
power was denied by any of them. "
"A further evidence in support OF the
constitutional power to protect and foster
manufactures by regulations OF trade, an
evidence that ought of itself to settle the
question, is the uniform and practical
sanction given to the power by the gen
eral government for nearly forty years,
with a concurrence or acqulescence OF
every state government throughout the
same period; and it may be added,
through all the vicissitudes of party which
marked the period. No novel construc'
ton, however ingeniously devised, or
respectable and patriotic its patrons, can
withstand the weight OF such author
tiles, or the unbroken current OF such
prolonged and universal practice and
again in 1927 he says that the doctrine
of protection had been entertained and
acted on from the commencement OF the
constitution of the United States by the
several branches of every administration
under it" and that "the power Of congress
in its enlarged sense was primary and
known object in forming the constltu
ton" When our courts are in doubt at
to the proper construction of a law one oil
the best means of guidance is to ascertain
the intention of the law makers. Wei
here We have laid down in language &C
clear as to carry absolute conviction tt
candid mind the intentions of the trainers
of the constitution on the question OF pro
lection. The entire constitution without
its amendments can be read in fifteen
minutes the greatest men OF this country
spent four months working from four te
seven hours per day in perfectingit. Every
clause was bitterly opposed and strenuous
" defended, every line and letter was
scrutinized until each delegate must have
thoroughly understood the entire docu
ment and certainly must have understood
their own intentions in every clause there
of. As M. Madison says not one o.
these men denied the power OF congress
TO enact the law referred to above. But
now in our day the national convention O.
the Democratic party declares that the
men who framed the constitution did no
understand the terms of the great instru
ment under which our fathers and our
selves have lived ia years in the enjoy
ment of such blessings as men neve
enjoyed before. But this is subject 0
such great importance that l must ash
you permission to take it up again in
future issue.
A. L. MORRISON.