The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-08-25
TITLE or THE DINGLEf BILL.
First Tarin Law Conveying Intimation
- That IL is for Other Pnrposes.


To the Editor Of the New York Times:
The title OF the pingley tariff law is
An Act to Provide Revenue for the
Government. and TO Encourage the IN
uJstries OF the United states. lhls IS
the first time that tarin Jaw mas Deen
placed upon the statute books mat con-
tanned the least intimatiOn on ITS lace
that 10 was laid for protective pUr-
poses. No other tariff law has ever had
any avOwed object resides the production
Of revenue. The Mckinley law, Tor eN-
ample. was entitled AN Act 10 Reduce
the Revenue and Equalize Duties on I'M
ports and Tor other Purposes
The significance OF the title OF THIS law
IS very striking. not only historically, but
practically. Constitutional lawyers OF the
higheslt class have held from the begin
ming Of our history that Congress has no
power, original or derived TO lay a tax
for tho purpose Of protecting or "en-
cOuragng" industries. Such tax. as
Judge Cooley says is colorado only, and,
where similar efforts by states TO per
vert the taxing power have come under
the scrutiny OF the courts, they have been
uniformly oyerthrown.
The unanimous denial by courts from
Maine 10 Louisiana that the legislature
can use the power 10 tax 20 protect or
encourage" has not been based on pecu-
liarities OF State Constitutions or rested
on technical reasoning. II is. as the
United States Supreme Court says In the
most famous case upon this point because
there are limitations on the taxing power
which grow out OF the essential nature
Of all free governments
AS the court says. ITO lay with ono
hand the power Of the government on the
property Of the citizen and with the other
10 bestOw II upon favored individuals 10
aid private enterprises and 10 build up
private fortunes, is none the less rob
berry because IL is done under the forms
Of law and is called taxation"
The protective tariffs Of the past. as
Judge Cooley points out. have escaped
destruction because they have escaped
judicial investigation. They have all been
ostensibly acts TO collect revenue. ana
nOminally based on the unQuestioned
Federal power to tax FOR public purposes
Where Congress has said that il is pass
ing a law TO collect revenue, the courts
have declined 10 permit litgant 10 as
sail or question the avowed purpose Of
: the legislature Veazie Bank VS.. Fenno
S Wall. $500. Even where it IS proclaimed
in political platforms and asserted in
every debate on every Item OF tarin
law that its purpose is for the protec-
ton of private interests and only Incl
dentally the raising OF revenue, the courts
will close their eyes 10 all evidence not
consistent with the declared purpose OF
the law.
The very simple and complete safeguard
or protective tariffs heretofore has been
tut El'Iud0lON1 OMISSION from the BODY
or the law or statement Of the real
purpose intended 10 be accomplished.
Does not he Dlngley law omit this pre-
cautiOn2 The title Of the act I'm reason
must compel the judicial attention OF the
courts. They must look 10 see how much
Of the act is for the Constitutional pur-
pose ~ providing revenue. and how much
FOR the unconstitutional purpose OF "en-
cOuraging." not the industries of the
United states. but certain Industries
therein enumerated. When they inspect
the act and find duties imposed so restrb,-
tive or prohibitory as 70 preclude the
idea that Congress intended them for tho
purpose Of providing revenue they must
conclude that these duties AT least were
for the other purTcse, and We're intended
by Congress not 10 provide revenue but
to encourage the industries 10 which they
appertain.
When they examine the whole bill. with
its prohibitOry average tax Of more than
a per cent, ad valOrem, might they not
very possibly decide that the purpose Of
providing revenue was entirely subordi-
nate 20 the other purpose Of "enCOurag-
ing certain industries
n the encouragement" Of Industries IS
unconstitutional. this law will have the
same status as IL IL were IAN act 10 pro-
vide revenue and establish an hereditary
order Of nobility 10 collect the same"
Al! that is needed IS 10 raise a doubt.
II the courts should be brought 20 the ne
cessity Of cXtrlnstc evidence. gathered
from debates In Congress and surround
ing circumstances. this question would
be decided In the light Of the real facts.
should this be done. decision on this
question could be at last obtained. And.
unless the whole current Of American
decisions is 10 be turned backward. and
unless the sOundest and best OF our Con-
stitutional lawyers are and have been ut
terly AT fault, there could be but one re-
suit Of such n test.
without going further than Is warrant
cd. this much can at least be said. This
elimination OF protective oppression
the opponents Of protection have had be-
fore The attack. even II chances are
doubtful IS well worth making. Tor -
success would either eXtermlnate n bane-
ful and degrading system OF drive II back
10 skulk behind the falsehoOd which has
thus far shielded II from Justice
II. SNOWDEN MARSHALL.
10 Wall street, New York. August 3 1897.
New York Times.