except for the strict purpose of raising necessary revenue; the
argument being perfectly logical and based upon the constitutional
principle we already have had that all taxation must be for the common
benefit. Democrats argued that if a tax upon imports was imposed to
raise the necessary revenue, that is for the common benefit; but if it
was imposed, as it avowedly is imposed in Republican legislation, for
the purpose of benefiting certain industries or classes, why that,
of course, is not for the common or general benefit and therefore
unconstitutional. The trouble with this position is that early English
laws were prohibitive of imports--that is, they were imposed for
prohibition _before_ they allowed importation on payment of duties.
This Statute of Westminster is a landmark, as showing how slow the
Commons were in even allowing taxation upon imports at all. They
earlier allowed the ordinary direct taxes. All that the Norman kings
got they got with the consent of Parliament, direct taxes, for the
common benefit; but they struggled for two centuries before they got
the permission of Parliament to impose duties, taxes upon imports;
here first they finally got it on wool, the thing produced of most
value of anything in England; and consequently an important protective
duty. It is a curious historical fact that this article, wool, seems
to be the chief bone of contention ever since; in our tariffs nothing
has been more bitter than the dispute on wool; the duty on wool is the
shibboleth of the extreme protectionist.[1] Ohio, which is the home
of the strong protection feeling, regards the duty on wool as the
corner-stone to the whole fabric. It is argued that "a cheap coat
makes a cheap man." In the East the feeling is that the duty on wool
makes clothing poor and shoddy, and the prices excessively high for
the poor. It is odd to find that the very first thing that did make
trouble was the duty on wool, and it is still making the same trouble
to-day.