OCR Text |
Show 15 per cent., which was placed on ' the different kinds of manufac- I lures. Hamilton is said to lie the first to make protection a national ! policy, but he evident y was a J believer in moderation and the J present McKinley hill would no doubt he considered the extreme. 1 '"There are persons," Mr. Hamilton j says, "who imagine that duties can j never be carried to too great length, since the higher they are the more they will promote domestic manufactures. manu-factures. Rut all extremes are pernicious in various ways. Kx-horbitant Kx-horbitant duties render othe r classesof the community tributary, 1 in an improper degree to manu-factoring manu-factoring classes to whom are given a monopoly of the markets; they force industry out of its natural channel and at last they oppress the merchant. They cause an inequality in-equality among "states, which inequality in-equality would be increased with the increased extent of the duties." Mr. Hamilton had seen the effects of discriminat ion during the time that the states had the power to levy duties. This tariff bill continued with but very few changes until 1812. Under Madison, a Democratic president, presi-dent, under the plea of war necessities neces-sities it was increased on iron and cotton to almost 25 per cent. This the protectionist prophesied that financial ruin would be the result; I but it was found that the revenue increased and business interests ad- i vanced. ; Here is what Prof. Summer, of the Yale College, a reeoirnized au- 1 ' i thority in matters of political economy, econ-omy, says: "The period from 1ST tl to 1SG01 was one period of comparative free , trade. For an industrial histoiy of the United States, no period pre- sents a greater interest than this. It was a period of very great and j very solid prosperity. The tarill' rates were low and their ell'ect I limited. It was called revenue tariU' with incidental protect ion. The manufacturers which, it had been said, would perish, did not perish and did not gain sudden and exorbitant profits. They made steady and genuine progress. The repeal of the English corn law in lS-iG opened a large market for American agricultural products. Tho effect on both countries was most happy. It seemed as if the old system hud gone forever, and that these two great nations, with free industry and free trade, were to pour increased wealth upon each other. The fierce dogmatism of protection and its deeply-rooted prejudice seemed to have received TARIFF TAXATION. A Concise Outline of its History by '"Farmer Democrat." ; Kinroii Rnu.Ki;: Having said something regard - ing tin.- object of taxation in a former for-mer issue of your paper, T shall, by ' j permission, now refer briefly to the history of tariff taxation. I am a believer in the maxim ''that to comprehend com-prehend the present we in lift know . tho past and to conceive the I future we must understand the j present. " One of the trains of abuses set forth by the American people ! against Kngland, before the war. was cutting oil' trade with all parts of the world ex- j cept Kngland. The Americans were also crippled in their industrial indus-trial pursuits in order to keep them safe for special manufactures. The war having terminated in our complete com-plete emancipation and the interference inter-ference in commercial and industrial indus-trial imrsuits having ceased tariff bill was drawn with the view of raising money tor the wants of the government. The country prospered and the believers in tariff for revenue, or as they were then called as now, strict constructionists, became the dominant party, so much so that but one electoral vote was cast against the election of the party's nominee. James Monroe. In 1824 thelooscconstructionists were in the majority in Congress and the tariff duty "was advanced; the debate lasted for two months and the protectionist desired the tariff to he sufficiently high to even prevent importation, claiming at the same time that the country would be more prosperous. This sort of logic brought Daniel Web-I Web-I stcr to his feet, who, in the course, j of his speech, said: fL0n the general question is the doctrine of prohibition not preposterous? Suppose Sup-pose all nations to act upon it, would they be prosperous according to this argument in the proportion in which they abolished intercourse with one another." In 1828 the duties were still increased. in-creased. It was the work of politicians poli-ticians and-manufacturers and was pretended to be commenced in the interests of the woolen manufacturers. manufac-turers. During the discussion of this hill the discussion became sectional sec-tional and many of the members of Congress, who were opposed to protection , voted an i ncrcase of unparalleled prosperity was the result. Tho states began to grow commercially independent of each other and levied duties on goods coming from one state to the other until these local tariff duties became so vexatious that tho trade and commerce of the country was greatly great-ly endangered and many of the states refused or neglected to pay their allotted share of the interest on the public debt. Selfishness began to show itself to such an extent ex-tent that some remedy must be j sought because the strong could lay ; any desired burdens-on the weak. It became evident that the only remedy was to take the power of levying and collecting internal taxes and duties on imports from the states and vest it in the general government. Virginia and Maryland Mary-land were the first to move in this needed reform. In 17S7 the Constitutional Convention Con-vention met and gave to us that great fundamental rule, the Constitution, Con-stitution, upon which is, or should be based, all our laws. The convention con-vention having completed their labors and prepared a report to Congress, which was submitted on the 17th of September, 1787, in which, we find this sentence, "The friends of our country have long seen and desired that power of levying money and regulating commerce should be fully and a fatal blow." Mr. Blaine, who is a recognized leader in the quarters of tho protectionist, pro-tectionist, and cannot be heard in favor of tariff for revenue, in his "Twenty Years in Congress," says: f;The tariff of 1S4 C was yielding abundant reveme, and the business busi-ness of the country was in a flourishing flour-ishing condition. Money became rery abundant after the year 1849; large enterprises were undertaken, ppeculation was prevalent, and for a considerable period the prosperity pros-perity of the country was general and apparently genuine. After 18-32 the Democrats had almost undisputed control of the government, govern-ment, and had gradually become a free-trade party. The principles involved in the tariff of 1S4G seemed for the time to be so entirely entire-ly vindicated and approved that resiBtance to it ceased, not only among the people but among the protective economists and even amovff the vianufacturers to a large extent. So general was tliis acquiescence ' that in ISoG a 2r''Qtt'c('re lar'F was not suggested or crew hinted at by any one of the parties which presented presidential candidates. candi-dates. It was not surprising, therefore, that in 1S57 the duties were placed lower than they had been since 1812." I shall close this chapter here. F. D. effectually vested in the General Government of the Union." Having long felt this need, we can readily understand why these words became a conspicuous part of the Constitution: "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several stales, and with the Indian tribes." This effectual bar in the commercial com-mercial relations between the states by tariif duties was now removed by the adoption of the Constitution and retaliatory taxation ceased and mutual good feelings began to prevail. pre-vail. No sooner had the first Congress under the Constitution met than Mr. Madison, one of the founders of Democracy, presented a resolution fur taxing imports for the purpose of giving resources to the almost e nip t y t rcasu ry and during th c ! debate that followed Mr. Hartly sounded the keynote of our protection protect-ion system. This first tariff bill which received Washington's signature, July 4, 1789, specified that one of its objects was uthe encouragement and protection pro-tection of manufacture," but the main object was for revenue for the liquidation of public debts incurred incur-red during the war fur independence. independ-ence. The principle which governed the adjustment of this tariff bill was to impose the highest per centum on articles of luxury and to lix the lowest rate on common idiIs, which is just the reverse of the principle of the protectionist of j'tiiday. j 'i he average ad valorem duty of hU first tariU' bill did not exceed tariff, among them being Daniel Webster. Debates upon the bill were bitter; the representatives of the manufacturing manu-facturing districts "were arrayed against those of the agricultural states. In 1833 a compromise tariff bill was passed, which settled the tariff question for nine years, or until 1S42. This bill provided for a gradual reduction of the tariff until 1S42, after which the duty was only to average 20 per cent. In 1837 the financial panic, the result of wild speculation, raged all over the land, but some of our politicians endeavor to make a great point of this and are not willing to accept history as authentic. authen-tic. They forget that the prosperity prosper-ity of the whole country was such that it required but one year to ! bridge over the financial crisis ;had the tariff been the cause, the condition con-dition would have grown worse annually until 1S42, because the tariff was reduced each year. In 1S42 the AVhig tariff bill was passed under the administration of W. II. Harrison. This tariff was chiefly for revenue for the government. Revenue was now less than expenses though it practically pract-ically restored the high duties of IS 2-1. In 1S44 James Polk was elected and Ins administration constitutes the most remarkable period of tariff reform in the history of this country. coun-try. The bill was drafted by Mr. Walker, who was a sincere adherent ad-herent of the Democratic school of commercial freedom. Great reductions were made and |