{"character_count": 7523, "word_count": 1285, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9648000001907349], "ccnet_perplexity": [2160.60009765625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 nate the incidental into the principal power, and transcending the limits of to impose nd ditlonal duty substantially and exclusively for inc purpose of afiordng that protection. They admit that Congress may counterva the regulations Of foreign power which may be hostile to our commerce, but they deny their authority permanently to prohibit all importation for the purpose of securing the home market exclusively to the domestic manulacturer,- thereby destroying the commerce they were entrust- ed to regulate and fostering an interest with which they have no constitutional power to interfere That portion of our fell0wcitlzens Of whom we speak, do not therefore, hesitate to affirm, that if the right 10 enact the tariff law of 1928 be referred to the autho rity to lay and collect dues &c it is papable abuse of the taxing power, which was conferred for purpose of revenue ;if to the authority 10 regulate commerce, ii is as obvious perverson of that pow er since it may be extended to utter annhlation of the objects which it was intended to protect.- Waving however thIs discussion, we concur in ihe opinion that if the aggrieved party is deprived ofhe l protection which the judicial department might otherwise afford it would strengthen his appeal 10 | the American people to unite with him in correcting the evil by peaceable and constitutional means

 But there is view of this subject which may claim the concurrence of all those who prepared 10 ad init that the tariffs unequal in its operation, oppres- sive and unjust. The constitution of the U. States had its origin spirit of compromise. Its object is the security of those rights which are committed to its proection-its principle that Of an equal parti cipaon in the benefits and in the burdens of the go- vernment. system of taxation which is unequal in its operation. which expresses the many for the benefit of the few, is therefore unjust not merely with reference to the great and mmutabe principles of right which are applicable to human conduct but Is moreover in direct collision with that constitutional equality ofrlght, which this instrument was thus con- fessedy intended to secure. A distinguished lurist of Massachusetts, who is advantageously known as such to the people of the Union, has said of he system of which complain. that It IS calculated to destroy many of the great objects for which lhe constitution of the United States was originally framed and adopted.n Who will affirm that sucl system can consist with the spirit of the constitution! Its enactments may be yelled as to elude the judi cial power, and may therefore be obligatory upon the other department of the Government; but le tween the constituent and agent between the people and their rulers the charter will in such case have been violated, and it will belong to them to correct the evil. Why should we fear to enunciate this principle? Is because of the danger of these n- ieress which have grown up under the system? A just consideration ofthe bject will lead to directly opposite result If it be conceded that tie system Is oppressive unequal and unjust can those who profit by it deceive themselves with the expectation oflts permanency? Is itprudent to close their eyes to the consequences, to which, or laer this conviction must inevitably lead? Distinguished this system is by every characteristic which may de- fine ayranny the most odlous, why should we who are lis victims, not stand upon our chartered rights As men and brethren we appeal to you then to unite your efforts with ours Tn the correction of this abuse. system which is unequal in its operation, and therefore unjust-whch is oppressive because it burhens the many for the benefit of the few grossly, fatally unwise and impotc, since it IS sub yersive of the harmony of the Unon-which is in violation of the principles of free government, and utterly at variance with the spirit of justice and mu- tual concession in which the Constitution was con ceived and adopted such system, if persevered in, must alienate our affections from each other en- | gender disconents and animosties, and lead n- Il evitaby and with force which no human power can resist, to the most awful of all calamtes We eneat those who differ from us, seriously to ponder this view of the subject. We entreat them not to misunderstood us. We cannot be deterred from the discharge of our duties to ourselves and our common country by the menace of consequences, and we equally incapable of using its language to others. It il and brothers-n the spirit of an affection ,l which is still warm and undimnshed, that would call their attention to those inevitable results which neither they will have the power to avert fl Examine the subject for moment in its connexion with the principles of en ghtened political econo my, and see if the considerations which urged 10 sustain this system are not falacious and deusive. The view must be necessarily brlef-conslsting of

 hints and suggestions rather than of an extended gument or of minute details; but object will be attained if these may serve to awaken spirit of dispassionate inquiry.

 We are the advocates of free trade The argu- ment which susains rests upon proposition which may not be denied. It is the unquestionable right of every individual to apply his ahor and capital in the mode which he may conceive best calculated to pro- mote his interest It is the interest of the public that he should apply it. He understands better than it could be understood by the government, what will conduce to his own benef fit ;-and since the ma jory of individuals will, if properly protected, be disposed to follow their interests, such applica- ton of their industry and capital, must produce in the result the greatest amount of public good.- Let it be remembered that the question relates clusvely to the application of capital. It cannot be generated by act of legislation. The power of the government is limited to its transter from one employment to another. It takes from some less favored interest," what it bestows the one which it prolesses to protect It is equally untrue that such a system gives greater employment to la bor Its operation is confined to the simple charge of it's application. Laws which protect by bounty any peculiar species of labor, cannot be said to en- courage American ndustry-that is, directed to va rious objects. These laws favor only single class; and since the bounty is not supplied by the govern ment, but taken from the pocket of the individual the protection which is given 10 one species of labor is so given at the expense of every other. That course of legislation which leaves American capital and labor to the unfettered discretion of those who possess the and apply the other, can alone be denominated the "American System."

 The interference of government, with the right of the individual to apply hls labor and capital in such mode he may think most conducive to his own in- terest, thus necessarily operates to diminish the az gregate amount of production. In other words the amount of the necessaries and conveniences of life which enjoyed by the community is necessarily diminished. If all nations then were willing to adopt the system of freetrade for which contend which is accordant to the spirit of Christianity and calculated to unite nations in harmony and peace it cannot be doubted that the interest of each would be promoted. The only question which can be raised on this part of the subject is, whether the