Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-09-20

Us might have preferred . little 4 Her
eni pnraseology, but ss a wnole Il sut-
ncssntly expresses our position with
reasonable clearuess and accuracy. /
realize the difficulty OF presenting the
question OF the conststutIonallty of u
protective tariff law 10 the courts, and
IA the view 10 might have been unnec-
essAry or not desirable 20 have cnal-
lenged It's legality. We need not nave
placed our objection upon that ground
While so many faLAl objections ex stod
10 the system Itself, but that course
VAS mere matter of discretion. The
fact remains that We have always III
sisted and nCw insist that no warrant
can Do found In the Constitution for the
imposition OF tariff duties TO ard private
industries, but whether such a tariff 10
constitutional or not, or whether lt 10
practicable TO have the ques-
ton properly raised or decided
tas system itself Is vicious IN the ex-
treme unjust 10 the people and contra
~ 10 the nprIt OF our freq institutions.
Let us examine the point . moment,
whence tcomes the power TO project
private Industries! What clause OF the
constitution can oe invoked for sucn u
a purposeg There Is none. liz must be
conceded by every Intelligent citizen
that the constitution does not grant
any such express powers. There Is not
an elementary law writer anywhere
whose treatise on the constitution IS
regarded IS standard authority, who
ventures To affirm the constitutional
rlgnt OF congress To levy duties for any
other direct purpose than for the sup
n~f nF "a M .l 80 -,
protection, therefore, does not constl-
tutionally exist, but IS imposed upon
the people byfraud, false pretense and
gross abuse of the taxing power. All
the sO-called protection for which our
opponents have clsnlOred and which
they have obtained IN recent years has
been secured not by constitutional
sanction, but by the abuse OF the con-
ceded taxing power Of the government.
lt furnishes hazardous precedent
which will surely return 10 plague u.
Asks Where All This w III Lead Us.
See where this will lead us. II the
general government, under the pretense
OF raising revenue, can impose prohibl-
tory duties and thereby protect domes-
tic industries from the com petition
which the laws of trade would other
wise provide, then under the same pre-
tense-the raising of reyenue-lt can,
by taxing essential, usurp the functions
OF the state governments aud virtually
regulate marriage and divorce, the
rate OF interest on money, the pur-
chases of property. the formation of
corporations. the making of leases and
of contracts of every description, all of
which are matters heretofore properly
considered under jurisdiction and reg
ulsnon OF the states. Incidental pro-
lection. on the other hand, is
Objectionable. The tariffs should
be imposed for the express
purpose of revenue, and not for any
private purpose. We believe IN rev.
not IN protection with incidental
revenue. In SO far as the tariff is ne
cessary to meet tbs necessities OF the
government, 1t may be imposed, and
any other benefit which may be legiti-
mately derived from its imposition may
and does necessarily accompany it.
The democratic position is q safe, logi-
Cal, conservative and Just position.
No tariffs, except "for the purposes of
revenue only" aud then limited to the
necessitie. of the government honestly
and economically administered, is a
doctrine which appeals to the good
sense and sound Judgment OF every
honest and thoughtful man. With the
constantly increasing expenses of gov
ernment aud the enormous amount
of money annually augment
ing, required by the grow
ing pension lists, these tariffs
which must necessarily be enacted TO
meet these expenditures will be for
many years to come amply sufficient
10 afford incidentally al the protec-
ton which the most ardent advocate of
the system can reasonably ask. More
than this ought not to be conceded to
anybody. In the imposition of neces-
ssry tariffs there should De exercised a
wise discrimination IN the amounts ex-
acted and IN the articles taxed. What
should be placed upon the free list and
what should be the the most heavily
burdened are questions not free from
difficulty. and requires the most care
fel consideration.
seric. of Reasons for the Mills Bill
The Mills bill OF 1888 and the separ-
ate tariff bills passed by the present
dlcats in a general way the democratic
position. They show:
!. That the necesssrles of life should
be absolutely tree.
:. That the luxuries should bear the
heaviest burdens.
3. That there should bs free raw
materials for the benefit Of our manu-
iscturers.
8. That the tsriH upon manufac
tured articles should. a. a general
rule. be larger where similar articles
are manufactured in this country than
where they are not.
.. That the tariff imposed upon all
manufactured articles (other than
those winch for good reason are
placed on the free list. should equal
the difference between the rate OF
wages paid IN TINS and foreign coun-
tres so far "a labor enters mt the
cost Of taeir production.
President harr son, Ia MS ingenious
letter Ut acceptance. epJeav0rs 20 place
the democratic party IN false attitude
~ calling attention to the fact tnat
w Dr. eur platform Of i.sf. Te.adopted
,n 1883. contained an express plank
upon tnls question % the equalization
oi wages. vet n VAS omitted IN 1879.
and ssserts mat we have changed our
position. I leg - diifer with him.
There hss been no change. There wa
no necessity for ths repetition of that
plank. ss TIE partY's position upon it
has leen evidenced - gha MiAs h.ll
wach had not been passed before the
nstlonsl conventions q 1854 and 1858.
Parties are fn fse fltgaa "a much bF
thetr records "a their platforms We
sfand 01t only upon oar platform