The Protective system
{"newspaper_name": "The North-Carolina standard.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5671, "word_count": 975, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9248999953269958], "ccnet_perplexity": [1477.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
mol De auended 10.


The Protective System


Consideredi in connection tUih TIL PRESENT TARIFF,
in series Of tsoeLUe essays in the


Washington Union oyer the signature Of I" BtlndeL-
ctn1d'' (IVrtten by the Hon Edmund B,uke)


No. 3-THe principles and distinctive differ


ences bet,ceen q tariff for rerenuc and one Jor


protection considered.


In my last in order to enforce more clearly
the injustice and inequality of the system of rais-
ing revenue for the use of the Government, by
the imposition Of customs duties upon foreign
imports-parcularly when that system was push
ed beyond the real object of raising revenue, and
became protective in It's fratures-I attempted
10 explain the difference between a tariff tGG AID
a direct tar !; showing that the first tax up
on Tie consumption of the country, and therefore
operated tax upon persons-al, whether rich
CT poor paying nearly equal portions Of that tax
and that the latter was tax upon property, of
which each person paid in proportion TO the
amount Of property he possessed.


also stated the proposition that, in the present
condition OF the country, and in the present state
of public sentiment on the subject, both of the
great parties into which the people Of this coun-
try are divi1td were in favor of raising the reve-
nIes required by the General Government, by
tariff OF imposls upon foreign importa,ions; and,
at the same time, [ endeavorcd 10 show that there





was the rercnue tariff system advocated by the
democratic party; the other the pr0tectire tariff
system, advocated by the federal or whig party.


In this communication l shall endravor TO
point out the principles and the distinctive differ
cnces of these two antagonist theories systems.
But, in passing, will seize The occasion to rePu-
diate onr term, applied by federal editors and ora
tors to the democratic party, land sometimes ac-
quiesced in by the latter y by the use Of which
ipiur hoe to fho
Cyl mean the term {" free trade" The demo-
cratic party, because they desire reduction of
the tariff 10 the revenue standard, falsely and
3ersevcringly denominatGd SHE frce-trGdc' party.
10 be candid, l believe some individuals Of the
democratic party not only acquicsce IN the COR
Tecncss of the term, applied 10 the advocates OF
a revenue tariff, but themselves d'nominate the
democratic the frcetrade party. This term mis-
represents their principles No party in this
country advocatrs the absolute doctrines of free
trade-that is, an abolition Of all duties, and
10 direct taxation. Certainly the democratic
party do not nor do any of its distinguished lead
ers including Mr. Calhoun himself one Of the
first and ablest champions of moderate tariff.
They propose TO approximate to the principles OF
free-trade only far as they can, by equal and
just imposition of duties to an extent sufficient 10
raise revenue for the necessary wants of the Gov
ernment. administered with strict regard TO econ
omy The democratic party, therefore. is not the
frcc-trade party, but IT is truly tho REVENUE
TARIFF PARTY.


Starting upon the conceded proposition that
both parties are in favor of tariff of some kind,
will now proceed TO show the principles and dis
tinctve differences between arevcnue and protcc-
tive tariff In the present condition Of our coun-
try, the General Government ought not TO exact
of the people, for its ordinary expenditures, more
than $50, 1000 900 at the outside Ii should not
exact so much. Extraordinary circumstances
such, for instance, as have grown out of the an
ncxation of Tcxas-may increase its expenditures
and compel it 10 exact more. But, whatever the
amount may be, it must (VHh the exception ol
the revenue accTuing from the sales of the public
land) be raised by duties upon foreign importa
tions-in other words, by a tGrlf.


How shall these duties be levied2 The demo
cratic party contends thu: they should be levied
solely a0sth rieU TO Teremue, leaning protection
accidental consequence of TerenMe duty
The Constitution permits duties 10 be levied fol
no other purpose. 1t docs not say that Congress
shall have power 6 to lay and collect taxes, duties
mposts, and excis6s to pay the debts, and provide
for the common defence and general welfare o
the United States," and TO project The mannfac
turers. They are 10 be laid and collected onl
for the benefit of the corporate body of the United
States, represented by their Government


Now, it has been found, in the experience o
nations, that if duty be imposed upon an article
100 nlSn IN proportion 10 lis value, IL Will have
twofold effect viz first, to check the impo1 tatio'
of The article; and, secondly, to defeat, or great
ly to diminish the amount Of recenue to be deriv
ed from it, if the duty were lower. 1t is evident
therefore, that when the rate of duty is so high a
to prohibit Its introduction into the country, o
greatly to diminish it. it defeats the revenue which
with more moderate duty, would be derivct
from it. 1t therefore ceases to be a revenue duty
and becomes prohibitiVe-n other words, pro
tectire."


1t has also been found, in the experience of ma
tons that there IS limit of duty achich aoiZ aseith
er preuent the importation Of the commodity O,
Ohieh IL IS imposed, nor diminish the rsreune t.
be deriUed from its iDaport0tiOn, This limit may
be higher, or lower, according to the nature o
the commodity on which it is imposed If th
commodity be of small bulk and great value,
will not bear so high rate of duty as connodi
ties of greater bulk and lesser value PARTICULAR
ifthe latter have become real or fancied neces
sary Of life. And the reason is obvious: if TOT
hiph dutv ia imnosed unon the commodity o