New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-07-08
CANDIDATE Us. PROFESSOR.

Governor Wilson's announcement that
the tariff will be the dominant issue Of
his campaign suggests the possibility Of
an entertaining and Illuminating debate
between the Democratic Presidential
candidate and a former professor OF
jurisprudence In Princeton University.
The Democratic platform, which was
adopted after the nomination to fit the
! nominee and on which Governor Wilson
Of course squarely and honestly stands,
contains this clear cut statement on his
dominant tariff issue:
We declare it to be a fundamental
principle of the Democratic party that
the federal government under the Con-
stitution has no right or power to i'm
pose or collect tariff duties. except for
the purpose Of revenue
There is the fundamental principle"
which Governor Woodrow Wilson, Dem
ocratic candidate, would defend In de-
bate.
In little volume written IN 1892, en-
titled Division and Reunion, 1S29-lSS9,'
by DR.. Woodrow Wilson, professor Of
Jurisprudence we read this exposition Of
the constitutional question raised by the
tariff of 1923, which was bitterly OPP
posed by the South as sectional in its
operation:
1t was this gross inequality in the OPP
Grafton Of the tariff, this burden thrown
upon particular section from which the
other sections were exempt, that gave
emphasis to the claim Of the Southern
leaders that such legislation was uncon-
stitutional, even deliberately, and pal
pably' unconstitutional The Constitu-
ton Of the United States explicitly be-
slows upon the federal Congress both the
power to levy taxes Of all kinds and the
power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations. The only limitation imposed
is that all taxation shall be uniform
throughout the United States and that
It's object shall be to provide for the
common defence or general welfare Of
the country. Plainly IT would seem to
be within the right Of Congress to regu-
late commerce by means Of duties or i'm
posts in any way that seemed TO 1t CAL
culated to promote the general welfare OF
the nation. At any rate. such an exercise
of power on its part could certainly not
be deemed within reason a deliberate and
palpable violation Of the Constitution.
The professor Of Jurisprudence while
thus contemptuously dismissing the no.
ton that duties levied for other than
revenue purposes were unconstitutional
adds that another argument might be
made for the Southern view Of the tariff
Of 1923 because 1t bore with its whole
weight upon a single section. The
staple states whose soil, climate,
habits and peculiar labor" as Calhoun
put it, destined them to remain agri-
cultural while others might diversity in
dustries, could cast serious doubt on a
law which was not uniform in its Incl
dents and amounted to special legisla-
ton for specific interests and specific
section, regardless Of the general well
fare. But the idea that Incidental or
even direct protection of domestic in
dustry by means Of tariffs was per sc
unconstitutional found no favor with the
Princeton jurisconsult.
If that professor is still in the land
of the living and his convictions have
not been Knocked into cooked hat" by
subsequent political exigencies, he and
the Democratic candidate would render
a great public service by getting together
and publicly talking out this question Of
the constitutionality of protection to an
authoritative settlement. We fear, how
ever, that there may be some difficulty in
bringing about this salutary debate for
the routing Of humbug, for it is doubt
full If the candidate is on speaking terms
with the professor, and If anybody who
has known them both is now in posi-
ton to introduce them.