Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1909-04-09

ABOUT reducUOn OF the duties IN the
tariff of 1928, it was still confessedly a
protective tariff, and the reaffirmation of
| congress that protection was constitution
al served to kindle the smouldering fires
of dissatisfaction in South Carolina into
a roaring flame of open opposition to the
! government. There were two parties In
J the state. Both were equally opposed to
/; protection, but their differences related to
| the manner of overcoming it, The one
! believed in notification, and the other
| did not.
When South Carolina ratified the con-
stitution she did so without any reserva-
! ton, like most of the states. But Virginia
and New York did not Virginia expressly
| 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 re-
! sumed by them whenever the same shall
be perverted to their injury or oppres-
SION New York had taken the same
position, stating that 1.-The powers Of gov
| eminent may be resumed by the people
| whenever 1t shall become necessary to
| their happiness" South Carolina assum-
cd this right as much as if it had been
an essential condition of ratification. as
with Virginia and New York.
The doctrine of the unconstitutionallty
! of protection was at the bottom of the
notification proceedings in South Caro-
| lima. All that the nullitiers asked was
| that the matter should be put into such
| shape that It could be carried to the SUI
preme court, asserting that they would
abide by it's decision. To that end they
wanted protectionists to insert in the pre-
amble of the act of 1928 the identical
| IF he Of ha of
1889, which specifically stated that the law
was for the encouragement Of manufac-
| lures. If this request had been granted
| the matter could have been finally deter
mined in the supreme court. But the pro-
tectionists would not risk such a proceed
ing. Whether their opposition sprung
| from a fear that majority of the court
were free traders, or whatever their mo-
| lives for denying the motion for an adj
| judication of the question, the fact re-
| mains that they refused to put the mat
ter in shape to be taken to the supreme
court South Carolina then sought to
! have the question of constitutionality
tested in another way. 1t refused to sat
| isfy bonds that had been given to secure
duties, pleading mo consideration for
taxes levied. Even on this plea it could
not get the case in court Taking the
view that it was being denied the consti-
| tutional right to have the constitutionality
of a measure determined, the Palmetto
State concluded that the only way to get
what it considered it's rights was by multi
| fcation.
! The doctrine of notification was first
enunciated in South Carolina in 1927 at a
public banquet and it continued to spread
thereafter. Later its legislature adopted
resolution saying that congress had
! transcribed it's constitutional power. and
| that as a body of equal standing with the
congress of the United States, the South
Carolina legislature must sound a warn
ing and q protest in a way that should
not be misunderstood.
From the South Carolina viewpoint the
act of 1893 was as bad as the tariff OF
denominations. OF course it had lowered
many duties, but there was not the abate-
ment of jot or little of the protection
principle. Refused the means to get the
matter into court, tbs south Carolina leg
islature passed the notification act. As
sertion was made in this act that the tar
III laws of 1928 and 1882 were unconstitu-
tional, and therefore null and void so far
as the state, it's officers, and its citizens
were concerned. The act prohibited the
collection of tariff duties within the con-
fines of the state after February /, 1888.
and cut off all appeals to the courts
lthereunder. All officers and Jurors were
required to take oath to abide by this
provision. and goods seized by the Gus
toms officials we're to be replevined by
state officers.
AS this happened after the passage of
! the act of 1882, it is necessary to go back
TO that measure and follow its course
through congress- Conditions threatening
the very existence of protection appeared
soon after the tariff of denominations went
into effect. The protectionists saw that
heroic action was necessary to save the
day. The following year they sought to
eliminate the denominations" OF the act
of 1923, and thus close the whole matter,
but their effort failed. 1t served only to
reopen the entire question. There were
some minor changes made by the twenty
first congress, but the whole situation was
gone into again in 1892 John Quincy
Adams, who was succeeded by Jackson az
president, was now in the house, and
chairman Of the committee on ways and
means. The administration offered tar
| if program in the form of report from
the secretary Of the treasury. free
trade bill was offered by the ways ana
means committee. The administration bill
proposed to reduce the average rate of
duty from A per cent to q per cent.
Neither measure could rally enough sup
port to pass IL. IN TINS extremity John
Quincy Adams was called upon to pre-
pare a measure. His bill corrected tho
'abominations" of the tariff of 1925 and
was one providing moderate protection"
It passed the house by a majority of two
to one.
But while proceedings in the house were
being carried forward, the senate was
usurping the power of the house, granted
specifically by the constitution. to origi-
nate all revenue measures. Henry Clay
had introduced a resolution abrogating all
non-competitive duties. except those on
wines and silk. Senator Hayne, of South
Carolina, offered another resolution pro-
viding that all duties should finally be
brought down to the average duty There
was long and profitless fight in the SEN