Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1844-06-07
POLK ON THE TARIFF.

The nomination of Mr.. Polk, has at once
raised the important question, "what are his
views on the tariff" and Mr.. Hardin Of
Illinois, in reply to a lettes from Mr.. Irwin of
Pennsylvania, has shed some light on this
subject.
In the session of 1912 -'43, Mr.. Polk
was a member of the Committee of Ways
and Means, which reported a bill (Which did
no, pass greatly reducing the duties below
those adopted by the Tariff of 1922 He
made a lengthy speech in favor of the pro-
posed bill, and against the Protective Sys-
TEN, winch will be found in Congressional
Debates, vol. 9, pages ll62 to IT'S. As a
specimen of the views presented in that
speech. ] will quote a few short extracts:
ut appears from this testimony that the duties
upon woollens (now fifty per cent? may not only be
reduced, but that ttrenty fire per cent. riH be a su0f.
cient protection, provided there be n corresponding
reduction on the raw material, and the duty be fully
and fairly collected and that the manufacturers of
co,tons, and especially of coarse cottons, would, be
able to continue their business p~roftabty at The rednc-
ed dutyof ,trelre and a hayper cent. on the rival for
eign article"
81 propose next to establish, BY testimony equally
entitled TO credit, the thlrn prop psllDn, WHICH Is, ina
the manufactures of the United States were IN a pros
porous condition under the act of 1916, and for EIGHT
years intervening between the years of 1916 and 1924,
and nlso that the act Of 1916 afforded them ample
incidental protection" icon. Debates, vol 8, page
"The wool. growers consider the duty upon foreign
wool as important to their prosperity, This opinion,
Iapprehend, is founded in error. Very little wool Of
the middling quality, such as we produce, is supported.
The kinds chiefly imported are either the coarse
South American wool, costing eight cents and under
the pound, neither of lrhieh de ice produce, or if we do
TO n very limited extent"
d" Nm opinion is hat uool should be duty free; but as
wool growers think otherwise, we have retained a
duty offfeen per cent. upon the imported article
ICON. Debates, vol. 9, p. l,l4.l
In relation to the Tariff of 1912 we are at
no loss for his opinions. Mr.. Polk was a
candidate for Governor in Tennessee in lS43,
Gin which race, you know, he was a second
time defeated by a large majority,) and DUR
ing the canvass he permitted no opportunity
10 escape him to denounce the Tariff in the
most bitter terms In response to an inqui-
ry whether he "approved Of such a Tariff as
would give protection TO Home Industry
against Foreign Industry" he answered as l
am informed by gentlemen who are perfectly
familiar with his views, as given on the stump
and in his circulars. that he was opposed to
the principle Of Protection. His answer TO
this and other interrogatories will be PUBLISH
ed as soon as they can be procured from
Tennessee.
Fortunately, however, I am at no loss for
an authentic document which presents Col.
PoLK's views of the Tariff Of 1912. have
before me the "Synopsis of Gov. PoM's
Speech to the People of Madison and the
adjoining Counties, delivered at Jackson, on
Monday, the Sd of april, ls4a," printed in
pamphlet form, and written GU, for publica-
ton by Gov. Polk. From it l quote the fol-
lowing extracts
"He took other views, briefly presented, Of the sub.
iect and proceeded to the discussion If the Protective
Tariff act passed by the last Congress. Tie showed
that by the Compromise Tariff OF 1888, the tax on no
imported article was to exceed 20 per cent. upon its
value after the Both OF June, lo42. No higher duty
than 20 per cent. ,oas imposed an any article after the
3Olh of June, 1912. until the Both Of August, 1917, on
which latter day The RIese Wh mn rnn 'sw w'I 1a ps's sioIe NJ
hands on the Compromise Actof 1893, and brokeit up
at was clear, therefore, that the late arm acI was
not a revenue measure. lthau Talseu me Ia'es W uu'
" so high as To >hut out imports, ana consequently 'o
cut off and diminish revenue
Judging from the amount of revenue received n
The Treasury, under the operations of The presen
T Tariff act, for the last quarter Of 1882, as already showr
+ il will moi produce annually half the amount of reve
= nue. which would have been produced by the lowe
rates of the compromise act, had that act been left un
disturbed.
ale was opposed to direct taxes, and to ~prohibl'o
. ~ and protective duties, and in favor Of such moder
q al, duties as would not cut of importations. IN
. OTHER WORDS, HE WAS IN FAVOR OF kt
, DUCING THE DUTIES TO THE RATES OF
. THE COMPROMISE ACT, WHERE TIE WHO
+ CONGRESS- FOUND THEM ON THE 9th OF
3 JUNE, ls42."
net of 1892 because il was q reduction Of the rates o
7 the act Of 1923, though by no means so low as h
would have desired 1t TO be; still il was the creates
reduction which could be attained at the time OF IL
h. PASSAGE ,,,