the machinery of a fair and free election upon the officers of States; so that the Federal government has nothing to do with it, and has no business to send Federal troops to the South; and they called such bills the “force” bill.  In theory, of course, those elections were controlled in these bills just as much in the North as in the South; but there being practically no complaint in the North that the negroes were not allowed to vote, as a matter of fact the strength of the Federal government was only invoked in the Southern States.

“Fines are to be reasonable.”  You find that principle in all our constitutions to-day in the clause that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishments, and that fines shall be proportionate to the offence; this principle is expressed also in Magna Charta.

Then slander and rape were made criminal at common law; before this only the church took jurisdiction.  Slander Is the imputing of crime to a person by speech, by word of mouth.  If it be a written imputation, it is libel and not slander.  Then in this statute also we find the first import tax upon wool.  The constitutionality of revenue taxes, duties, or taxes on imports, was once disputed by our parties; one party denying the constitutional right to impose any tax upon imports 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.