Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-09

persistant claim made in certain quar-
ters that all efforts to relieve the people
from unjust and unnecessary taxation
| are schemes of so-called free-traders, ls
miechievous and far removed from any
consideration of the public good
These are not the sentiments OF some
unknown man, disconnected with pres
ent Democratic policies; but they con-
st;tute the views OF Grover Cleveland.
THE ISSUE souARELY STATED.
The question before the people is
| aptly expressed by Senator Hill in this
| language:
| The Republican party advocates the
| doctrine that the government mas a
constitutional as we'll as a moral right
to impose tariff duties for the purpose
of encouraging the building up OF pri-
vste industries by the imposition OF du-
ties sufficiently large to prevent foreign
competition, irrespective of the ques-
ton of the needs of the treasury; while
the Democratic party believes that the
government has only constitutional and
moral right to impose such duties as may
be necessary to raise sufficient revenue
to support the government, economical
ly administered"
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
Much has been said with reference to
the assertion in the Democratic plat
form that the federal government has
no constitutional power to impose and
collect tariff duties, except for the pur'
pose of revenue only.
1t must be understood that there are
many laws which are really invalid. but
the circumstances of their enactment
are such that the courts are not per-
mitted to ascertain the true legislative
intention. Some statutes, which are
really in violation of the constitution,
are maintained because they are
apparently all right, and the
court cannot look behind the curtain.
To illustrate. In the case of Rankin
against Colgen, 92 CAL, sos, our supreme
court upheld the act requiring the con-
troller to draw his warrant in favor of a
certain claimant, in whose favor bill
had been passed and approved. but who,
as a matter of fact, had no constitu-
tional right to legislative relief. He had
been an officer of the state, and had
been paid bis full salary and the OBJ
ject of the act was to give him extra
compensation. But the supreme court
decided that it could not investigate the
facts upon which the Legislature acted,
but must presume that the money was
due for services rendered under euch
circumstances as to make the statute
valid.
Exactly the same proposition was de-
cided in Stevenson vs.. Colgan, 81. CAL,
$40, where monev was appropriated for
the relief of Colonel Stevenson. 1t was
decided that the court must confne it.
self to the facts appearing upon the face
of the law, and, as the law, thus con-
sidered, did not appear to be unconsti-
tutional, no further investigation could
be made. It was admitted, that il the
object was to pay for acts already done,
then the statute was void. Such was in
truth the actual object. There was no
pretence upon the part of anyone that
the services that were to be there paid
for were to be performed in the future.
Yet the court held that the act was
valid; though, if that tribunal could
have iudicially known the true condi-
tion of affairs, the decision would have
been otherwise.
And 80 with tariff laws. The Demo
cratic platform does not pretend to say
that the courts will necessarily decide
the tariff laws unconstitutional. 1t
afirms that raising money for the mere
purpose of subsidizing an individual is
contrary to the organic law. 1t is ad-
mitted that congress has power to raise
revenue by tariff imposition and, this
power being conceded, the courts of
course, cannot inquire into the opera
ton OF the statute or the extent of the
levy.
1t has been asserted that these laws
| have heretofore passed unchallenged
but this is far from being true.
Republican leaders direct our atten-
tion to the preamble of the tariff act OF
1889. viz:
Whereas, 1t is necessary for the
support of this government, for the
discharge of the debts of the United
States. and the encouragement and pro-
lection of manufacturers, that duties be
laid," etc.
This preamble must be interpreted by
the act which accompanied it. The du-
ties there prescribed range from to Is
per cent. 1t is therefore patent that it
was the idea of those who framed that
measure that manufacturers might re-
ceive only such protection as incidental
ly followed tariff for revenue.
Such schedule as that provided by
the act of 1889 would now be called rank
free trade. The tariff of 1890 averaged
II per cent; that of 1791, 1917 per cent.
In 1909 the eseverest duty was 2434 per
cent.
But, slight as was the tariff tax of
1889, it did not receive the unqualified
acquiescence of the statesmen of that
time. Mr.. Jefferson withdrew from the
cabinet in 1898, upon the distinct
ground that he would not be held even
indirectly responsible for the doctrine of
Alexander Hamilton, as announced in
that statesman's reports on manufac-
turers.
But even Hamilton did not believe in
never ending protection. His idea, as
expressed in his report, was that while
the payment of bounties for the en-
couragement of new industrial under
.takings was advisable, their continuance
on manufactures long established was
most questionable.
Mr.. Justice Miller, of the supreme
court of the United States, in speaking
for that august tribunal, in Loan asso-
citation vs.. Topeka, 20 Wallace, 662,
says: Beyond cavil, there can be
no lawful tax which is not laid for
public purpose. To lay with
one hand the power of the government
on the property of citizen, and with
the other bestow it upon favored indi-
viduals to aid private enterprises and
build up private fortunes, is none the
less robbery because it is done under