"domestic industry" of the others.

If these views be correct, it remains to inquire how far the tariff act
of 1842 is consistent with them. That many of the provisions of that act
are in violation of the cardinal principles here laid down all must
concede. The rates of duty imposed by it on some articles are
prohibitory and on others so high as greatly to diminish importations
and to produce a less amount of revenue than would be derived from lower
rates. They operate as "protection merely" to one branch of "domestic
industry" by taxing other branches.

By the introduction of minimums, or assumed and false values, and by the
imposition of specific duties the injustice and inequality of the act of
1842 in its practical operations on different classes and pursuits are
seen and felt. Many of the oppressive duties imposed by it under the
operation of these principles range from 1 per cent to more than 200 per
cent. They are prohibitory on some articles and partially so on others,
and bear most heavily on articles of common necessity and but lightly on
articles of luxury. It is so framed that much the greatest burden which
it imposes is thrown on labor and the poorer classes, who are least able
to bear it, while it protects capital and exempts the rich from paying
their just proportion of the taxation required for the support of
Government. While it protects the capital of the wealthy manufacturer
and increases his profits, it does not benefit the operatives or
laborers in his employment, whose wages have not been increased by it.
Articles of prime necessity or of coarse quality and low price, used by
the masses of the people, are in many instances subjected by it to heavy
taxes, while articles of finer quality and higher price, or of luxury,
which can be used only by the opulent, are lightly taxed. It imposes
heavy and unjust burdens on the farmer, the planter, the commercial man,