Several letters were addressed to him, soliciting his views upon the tariff question; and the answer which he gave to one of them, was the subject of much discussion in every section of the Union.* While it was admitted in several of the Southern States, that Mr. Clay was in favor of discriminations for the protection of home industry, it was at the same time insisted that Mr. Polk entertained the same views. In Pennsylvania, it was argued by the democratic party, that the two candidates occupied the same platform upon the tariff question. If the principles which Mr. Polk really entertained were misunderstood, owing to the phraseology of his Kane letter, he was not himself altogether blameless for

*"DEAR SIR: I have received recently several letters, in reference to my opinions on the subject of the tariff, and, among others, yours of the 30th ultimo. My opinions on this subject have been often given to the public. They are to be found in my public acts, and in the public discussions in which I have participated.

"I am in favor of a tariff for revenue, such a one as will yield a sufficient amount to the treasury to defray the expenses of the Government, economically administered. In adjusting the details of a revenue tariff, I have heretofore sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed, and at the same time afford reasonable incidental protection to our home industry. I am opposed to a tariff for protection merely and not for revenue."-Letter of Mr. Polk to John K. Kane, dated Columbia, Tennessee, June 19, 1844.

The author was upon the democratic electoral ticket in Tennessee, in 1844, and his opponent, while he admitted that Mr. Clay was in favor of discriminating duties for the protection of home industry, would insist, from the language of the Kane letter, that Mr. Polk was a protectionist to the same extent as Mr. Clay.

"We therefore insisted that the one was as good a tariff man as the other."-Speech of James Thompson of Penn., July 1, 1846. Congressional Globe, Appendix, 1st session 29th Congress.

Mr. Thompson was explaining the course pursued in that State in the contest between Messrs. Clay and Polk.

the error which was committed by his supporters. It is not to be disguised, that the English language was of sufficient scope and flexibility to enable him to define his opinions with more clearness and greater precision. If he had stated that he was in favor of a tariff discriminating alone in favor of revenue, there would have been no misconception of his views. Or if he had expressed his preference for such discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed,-protection flowing as a necessary incident therefrom, every man of ordinary understanding would have comprehended his meaning. The voters in the North were deceived by the use of language which had the effect of obscuring, instead of more clearly defining his position. The assertion that he had sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed, was the statement of a fact which the record confirms; and there he ought to have stopped, because every one understands that protection flows as a necessary incident from a revenue tariff. The statement that he was opposed to a tariff for protection merely, and not for revenue, should have been transposed, by asserting that he was in favor of a tariff for revenue merely, which would have endorsed the principles he had always entertained, and which he subsequently enforced with his characteristic ability and energy.

The views which Mr. Polk entertained, were explained with precision and ability in his first annual message.* The principles which would govern his

"The attention of Congress is invited to the importance of making

administration were proclaimed with great boldness, and the odious features of the tariff of 1842 were thoroughly investigated and exposed. Congress

suitable modifications and reductions of the rates of duty imposed by our present tariff laws. The object of imposing duties on imports should be to raise revenue to pay the necessary expenses of Government. Congress may, undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, discriminate in arranging the rates of duty on different articles; but the discriminations should be within the revenue standard, and be made with a view to raise money for the support of the Government."

"It becomes important to understand distinctly what is meant by a revenue standard, the maximum of which should not be exceeded in the rates of duty imposed. It is conceded, and experience proves that duties may be laid so high as to diminish, or prohibit altogether, the importation of any given article, and thereby lessen or destroy the revenue which, at lower rates, would be derived from its importation. Such duties exceed the revenue rates, and are not imposed to raise money for the support of government. If Congress levy a duty for revenue of one per cent. on a given article, it will produce a given amount of money to the treasury, and will incidentally and necessarily afford protection or advantage to the amount of one per cent. to the home manufacturer of a similar or like article over the importer. If the duty be raised to ten per cent., it will produce a greater amount of money, and afford greater protection. If it be still raised to twenty, twenty-five, or thirty per cent., and if as it is raised the revenue derived from it is found to be increased, the protection or advantage will also be increased; but if it be raised to thirty-one per cent., and it is found that the revenue produced at that rate is less than thirty per cent., it ceases to be a revenue duty. The precise point in the ascending scale of duties at which it is ascertained from experience that the revenue is greatest, is the maximum rate of duty which can be laid for the bona fide purpose of collecting money for the support of the Government. To raise the duties higher than that point, and thereby diminish the amount collected, is to levy them for protection merely, and not for revenue. As long, then, as Congress may gradually increase the rate of duty on a given article, and the revenue is increased by such increase of duty, they are within the revenue standard. When they go beyond that point, and as they increase the duties, the revenue is diminished or destroyed, the act ceases to have for its object the raising of money to support Government, but is for protection merely."

"It does not follow that Congress should levy the highest duty on all articles of import which they will bear within the revenue standard; for

was urged to substitute ad valorem for specific and minimum duties. That portion of his message is a masterly and unanswerable argument in favor of free trade, and bore the impress of a comprehensive mind, thoroughly imbued with the subject.

such rates would probably produce a much larger amount than the economical administration of the Government would require. Nor does it follow that the duties on all articles should be at the same, or a horizontal rate. Some articles will bear a much higher revenue than others. Below the maximum of the revenue standard Congress may and ought to discriminate in the rates imposed, taking care so to adjust them on different articles as to produce in the aggregate the amount which, when added to the proceeds of sales of public lands, may be needed to pay the economical expenses of the Government. In levying a tariff of duties, Congress exercise the taxing power, and for purposes of revenue may select the objects of taxation. They may exempt certain articles altogether, and permit their importation free of duty. On others they may impose low duties. In these classes should be embraced such articles of necessity as are in general use, and especially such as are consumed by the laborer and the poor, as well as by the wealthy citizen. Care should be taken that all the great interests of the country, including manufactures, agriculture, commerce, navigation and the mechanic arts, should, as far as may be practicable, derive equal advantages from the incidental protection which a just system of revenue duties may afford. Taxation, direct or indirect, is a burden, and it should be so imposed as to operate as equally as may be on all classes in the proportion of their ability to bear it. To make the taxing power an actual benefit to one class, necessarily increases the burden of the others beyond their proportion, and would be manifestly unjust. The terms protection to domestic industry' are of popular import; but they should apply under a just system to all the various branches of industry in our country. The farmer or planter who toils yearly in his fields, is engaged in domestic industry,' and is as much entitled to have his labor 'protected' as the manufacturer, the man of commerce, the navigator, or the mechanic, who are engaged also in domestic industry' in their different pursuits. The joint labors of all these classes constitute the aggregate of the 'domestic industry' of the nation, and they are equally entitled to the nation's' protection.' No one of them can justly claim to be the exclusive recipient of protection' which can only be afforded by increasing burdens on domestic industry' of the others."-Message of Mr. Polk to Congress, December, 1845.

The doctrines which were sustained by the Executive were enforced with consummate ability by the Secretary of the Treasury. He made certain principles the basis of his celebrated report against the protective policy. That argument has been submitted to the test of scrutiny and of time. The most powerful advocates of the protective system employed their energies in refuting his assumptions, and controverting his facts. But his platform was never abandoned; and like the sailor, whose eye is fixed upon his compass amidst storms and tempests, he adhered to his principles with an iron will, and an inflexibility of purpose, which insured success against all opposition.

On the 15th of June, 1846, the House of Representatives proceeded to the consideration of a bill for the repeal of the tariff of 1842. The debate upon this bill was characterized by great power. Principles were laid down, and facts adduced. Musty

*"1st. That no more money should be collected than is necessary for the wants of the Government, economically administered.

“2d. That no duty be imposed on any article above the lowest rate which will yield the largest amount of revenue.

"3d. That, below such rate, discrimination may be made, descending in the scale of duties; or, for imperative reasons, the article may be placed in the list of those free from all duty.

"4th. That the maximum revenue duty should be imposed on luxuries. "5th. That all minimums, all specific duties, should be abolished, and ad valorem duties substituted in their place, care being taken to guard against fraudulent invoices and under-valuation, and to assess the duty upon the actual market value.

"6th. That the duties should be so imposed as to operate as equally as possible throughout the Union, discriminating neither for nor against any class or section."-Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 3d, 1845.