New-York tribune., 1904-09-18

when they cannot rival you II you make them
as good and as cheap Fisher Arnes retorted.
We informed az 20 the nourshirE condl-
tons u th- manufacture. but should not
follow Mr.. Tucker IN concluding that Il does not
therefore need legislative protection He spoke
or The necessity Of encouraging manufactures In
a country where the soil Is so fertile and the
people naturally turn 70 agriculture
JAMES MADISON FAVORED PROTECTION.
The views Of Mr.. Madison were given at length
upon numerous occasions. His preference was
for as free commerce as poss. .bIe. yet he favored
a discriminating duty in the interest of Aneri-
shipping When he offered the bin his idea
was revenue He said: I presume that how
ever much may be disposed TO promote do
nestle manufactures We ought 20 pay some re-
gard 10 the present policy OF obtaining rev.
enue." He feared delay TO perfect system OF
protective duties viii lose revenue" He was
opposed generally 10 commercial shackles but
thought agriculture should be protected as well
manufactures. Certain industries had so ad-
vanced that they could not be abandoned; he
spoke of the contention that each nation snould
have means OF defence within itself. ana saI9
some articles offered for protective duties tended
10 that. Upon the whole he SAID, mink
some OF the propositions may De pfoduCuIe oA
revenue. and some may protect our mahu41Sl-
ures. though the latter subject ought not 10 De
too COufusedly blended with the former. speak
ing OF a proposed high duty on beer, Mr.. Madi-
son said he did not think the proposed nine
cents duty on beer would give monopoly, but
the manufacture 10 cause IL TO take ueep fOoI
In every State in the Union
No suggestion made BY the constitutional
lawyers who made the Constitution that a taTlI
for protection would be obnoxious 70 that m
strUment. When II was proposed 20 IeVy duuts
for protection. with the expectation tn@t ltlIie
revenues would accrue. neither MT Mao
ison nor any OF his colleagues Ventured the opln-
ION that duties for protection not for revenue:
would be IA violation OI the letter OF spirit OF
the Constitution.
Members from the agricultural States objected
- % IN
agriculture. Mr.. Lee, Of virginia moved 10
strike steel. and said: 1T s an essential 10
agriculture; some States cannot get II "lthout
importation" When the Item OF coal was reaGhed @
AF. Bland. OF Virginia, who mad OBJECTED 10
duties that would be oppressive upon the farn-
er, urged duty OF three cents blshei ABOUT
equal 70 the present duty on soft coal he salo:
There coal mines in Virginia capable OF
supplying the whole OF the United States; II
some restraint We're laid upon foreign importa-
tion OF coal, the mines would be worked 10 ad-
vantage" This brought a rise from the friends
Of manufactures. Mr.. Hartley thought three
cents a bushel would be a burden upon manu-
factures He favored one cent 4 busheL Three
cents adopted.
Interest was manifested in the details OF the
first tariff. just as in the making Of modern
tariff bills. PrOtectOnists brought forward eFi-
dence as 10 needs OF particular industries. Mr.:
Carroll OF Maryland said a glass factory had
been established IN MS State which should be
protected. Notwithstanding objections from
States with marine interests. protective duty
was placed upon Cordage ALMOST high the
present rates. Representatives from the South
urged protective duties on hemp IN the interests
Of agriculture. Mr.. Madison said the Western
lands were suited TO the culture OF hemp to ad-
vantage If the labors Of the husbandman were
protected by the government" Hemp was put
in at duties that would not now be regarded by
hemp growers OF the South protective.
The fathers of the Republic were protection
lists They did not believe that duties levied for
protective purposes were pervers.ons OF govern
mental power violations OF the United States
Constitution. Mr. Madison presented a purely
revenue bill In the Ist Congress. In response
TO public sentiment and practically the unani-
nous demand of the fathers Of the Republic,
the bill became a protective tariff act