The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-21

the reaH1rmation of Congress that protection was constitutional served to kindle the smouidering fires of dls- satisfaction in South Carolina into a roaring flame of open opposition to | the government. There were two par | ties in the State. Both were equally opposed to protection. but their dif- | ferences related to the manner of | overcoming 1t. The one believed in | nullifcation, and the other did not. When South Carolina ratified the constitution she did so without any reservation. like most of the States But Virginia and New York did not. Virginia expressedly reserved the right | to withdraw from the Union whenever things did not go to suit her, stating | in her act of ratification that the powers granted in the constitution. be- ing derived from the people may be resumed by them whenever. the samo shall be perverted to thir Injury or | opposition" New York had taken the same position, stating that the pow CTS of government may be resumed by the people whenever It shall be- come necessary to their happiness" South Carolina assumed thls right as much as If 1t had been an essential condition of ratification, as with Vfr- ginia and New York.
 The doctrine of the unconstltution- ality of protection was at the bottom of the notification proceedings In South Carolina. All that the nullifers asked was that the matter should be put into such shape that 1t could be carried to the Supreme Court. assert ing that they would abide by its decs- ion. To that end they wanted pro- tection to insert in the preamble of the Act of 1928 the identical words of the preamble of the tariff of 17S9. which specifically stated that the law was for the encouragement of man. ufactures. If this request has been granted the matter could have been finally determined in the Supreme Court But the protectionists would not risk such proceeding. Whether their opposition sprung from fear that a majority of the court were Free Traders, or whatever their mo- tives for denying the motion for an adjudication of the question. the fact remains that they refused to put the matte rin shape to be taken to the Supreme Court South Carolina then sought to have the question of consti- tutionality tested In another way. It refused to satisfy bonds that had been given to secure duties pleading mo consideration for taxes levied. Even on this plea 1t could not get the case In court. Taking the view that 1t was
 
 to have the consttutionality of measure determined. the Palmetto State concluded that the only way to get what 1t considered Its rights was by nullifcation.
 The doctrine of nuIlifcation was first enunciated In South Carolina in 1927 at a public banquet, and 1t con- tinued to spread thereafter. Later ils Legislature adopted a resolution say ino thot ho1 fpar 6n1 ffS constitutional power. and that as body of equal standing with the Con- gress of the United States, the South Carolina Legislature must sound warning and a protest in a way that should not be misunderstood.
 From the South Carolina viewpoint the act of 1892 was as bad as the tariff of abominations. Of course it had lowered many duties, but there was not the abatement of a Jot or title of the protection principle. Refused the means to get the matter into court, the South Carolina Legislature passed the nulliflcation act Assertion was made in this act that the tariff laws of 1928 and 1882 were unconstitution- al, and therefore null and void so far as the State, it's officers. and it's citi- zens were concerned. The act pro- hibited the collection of tariff duties within the confines of the State after February l, 1893, and cut off all ap peals to the courts hereunder All officers and jurors were required to take the oath to abide by this provis- ion, and goods seized by the customs officials were to be replevined by State officers
 As this happened after the passage of the act of 1892; it is necessary to go back to that measure and follow Its course through Congress Conditions threatening the very existence of pro- tection appeared soon after the tain of abominations went into effect. The protectionists saw that heroic action was necessary to save the day. The following year they sought to elimi- nate the "abominations" of the act of 1928, and thus close the whole mat ter, but their effort failed. It served only to reopen the entire question. There were some minor changes made by the Twenty y-first Congress. but the whole situation was gone into again In 1892. John Quincy Adams, who was succeeded by Jackson as Presi- dent. was now in the House, ana chairman of the committee on ways and means The adDinistration offered a tariff program in the form of report from the Secretary of the Treas ury A Free Trade bill was offered by the ways and means committee. The administration bill proposed to reduce the average rate of dl.y from forty four per cent. to twenty-seven per cent. Neither measure could rally enough support to pass 1t. In this ex- tremity John Quincy Adams was call ed upon to prepare a measure. Ills hill corrected the "abominations 6f the tariff of 1928, and was one provid- ing moderate protection" It pass ed the House by majority of two to one. .t., ,........... -....
 But while proceedings in the House were being carried forward the Sem ate. was. usurping the power of the House, granted specifically by the Con- stitution, to originate all revenue measures Henry Clay had introduced a resolution abrogating all non-com- petitive duties except those on wines and silk. Senator Hayne of South Carolina. offered another resolution providing that all duties should final ly be brought down to the average duty There was long and protitless fight in the Senate, resulting in the rejection of both propositions.
 On the whole. the Senate amended the bill upwards, much to the satisfac tion of the Protectionists, and 1t was finally passed by a two to one vote. But when the bill went to conference It struck a parliamentary snag of an unexpected nature, which served to de- prive the Protectionists of much of the fruits of their victory in the Sem ate. The president pro tempore of the Senate, Mr. Tazewell. of Virginia. appointed as the Senate conferees on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, Senators Wilkins, Dickerson anI Hayes. The first two had voted