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 of 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 protection to our home interests.
Within the revenue limit there is a discretion to discriminate; beyond
that limit the rightful exercise of the power is not conceded. The
incidental protection afforded to our home interests by discriminations
within the revenue range it is believed will be ample. In making
discriminations all our home interests should as far as practicable be