collected than the necessities of an economical administration shall
require all parties seem to acquiesce. Nor does there seem to be any
material difference of opinion as to the absence of right in the
Government to tax one section of country, or one class of citizens, or
one occupation, for the mere profit of another. "Justice and sound
policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to
the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to
the injury of another portion of our common country." I have heretofore
declared to my fellow-citizens that "in my judgment it is the duty of
the Government to extend, as far as it may be practicable to do so, by
its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair and just
protection to all the great interests of the whole Union, embracing
agriculture, manufactures, the mechanic arts, commerce, and navigation."
I have also declared my opinion to be "in favor of a tariff for
revenue," and that "in adjusting the details of such a tariff I have
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," and that I was "opposed to
a tariff for protection merely, and not for revenue."

The power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" was
an indispensable one to be conferred on the Federal Government, which
without it would possess no means of providing for its own support.
In executing this power by levying a tariff of duties for the support
of Government, the raising of _revenue_ should be the _object_ and
_protection_ the _incident_. To reverse this principle and make
_protection_ the _object_ and _revenue_ the _incident_ would be to
inflict manifest injustice upon all other than the protected interests.
In levying duties for revenue it is doubtless proper to make such
discriminations within the _revenue principle_ as will afford incidental