The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-19

legislative assemblies gather wisdom rapidly, when
removed beyond the atmosphere Of court.
These various faint lights from the past converge
TO one point They indicate 10 us the lneyltaoie
line progress. Il has been in ecclesiastical SO
In commercial affairs, from the more To the less o.
interference. One statute used 10 NIX the wages OF
labor, and another the price Of food both are now
left TO regulate themselves The legislator formerly
decided who should manufacture tins article, anu
who vend that; as a general rule, each may now
make or sell what he peases. 10 these cases, Is
not much that we have altered the law, we nave
| repealed il. We have legislated more wisely than
| our ancestors, chiefly In that We have legisia1a
less. We have run our experiments throush these
various phases of interference, 10 learn at last how
many cases there are in which legislative aid Is an
incumbrance, and legislative duty--to do nothing.
| Let US apply these lessons OF the past have
spoken of those forms of legal Intermeddling with
commerce that are Anticipated, and have past away;
let us turn to these that are still fashionable at this
day, and in own country.
Tariff protection is the chief Of these. The OBJ
iect proposed by protective tariff Is similar TO that
which the legislator of former days had IN view
when he determined rates Of wages and hxed scales
Of prices Some branch Of industry, generally
manufacture is declared TO be in feeble and droop-
ing condition; its profits SMALL It's wages too
low; its prices insufficient Politicians go 10 work,
increase the profits and raise the wages and the
prices This they effect by shutting out eompetl-
ton Formerly close corporation was the usual
form employed; all but the members OF the favored
company were forbidden to compete. In our days,
the monopoly with some exceptions, is co-exIen-
sive with The kingdom or republic IN which the law
is passed; and competition is forbidden, under PEN
atty of fine, to foreigners only. Thus Is great i'm
proyement upon Queen Elizabeth : exclusive patents
and close corporations.
Yet the effect produced by these national monop-
oes differs in degree only, not in kind, from that
| caused by those exclusive corporations. Three
hundred years ago, Elizabeth's patent increased the
price Of salt en-fold; the tariff OF to-day raises
comparatively moderate per centage only. The
former excluded all competition, both foreign and
domestic, the latter leaves domestic competition un.
checked. Yet IN both cases, the principle Is iden
lical. Artificial means employed TO control and
divert from its natural channels, the current Of
trade. certain amount OF competition Is smut out
| by law for the purpose OF raising the price OF a
certain article, to It's producers and Of course, to
its consumers also That is the operation, and the
intended effect OF all protective tariffs. lfthey do
not produce that effect they are, so far as regards
! protection, imperative and useless IL they do
produce It, they leglsate money from the pockets OF
one class into the pockets of another without any
value received to Justify the transfer They do
not effect this directly did ST. Louis by his ordI-
nance against the Jews or as did the early Govern.
ors Of Virginia, when they fixed by law the price OF
corn. But they effect H. nevertheless
| As the close corporations Of the middle ages may
have been, for the time, a defence against worse
ring the infancy of State the Interference Of tenn
porary tariff for protection-a hedge TO defend the
| young plants of enterprise, until they shoot up to
an independent growth-may produce benefits to
oveTbaance It's injustice, But this, like the kindred
plea of retaliation is question of the day and Of
expediency. The ultimate issue Of reform is one
question; the day and the hour when each step may
safely and usefully be made, is another Yet the
statesman has stronger temptation to be over scru
pulous than to be overrash. 1t is the tendency Of
a temporary injustice TO endure beyond the term of
its necessity especially when the pecunlary inter
ests Of any class Of men Identified with It's en-.
durance.
| Sir, | bring railing accusation against any
party. presume not 10 Judge the motives, pass no
condemnation the acts, Of any class Of men.
Who so wise, that he may boast never to have been
blinded by lnteresp-so just that the hope of pres
ent advantage canno, mislead HIM | would speak
Of errors without denying their honesty. To long
vexed question | invite the attention Of our oppo-
nents, in the spirit of the text Come now, and let
| US reason together"
In such a spirit ask the advocates Of tariff pro-
lection: how far do your views extend What are
your intentions' This policy Of imposing taxes,
not with a single eye to revenue, but with the ex-
press design to shut out competition and raise
prices-do you regard it as permanent policy
You speak of it as pstriotc you still call it Ameri-
| can: do you hope to continue, to perpetuate, 10
engrah 1t on our republican system, to transmit il
to posterity'
You cannot do it History, lifting up her voice OF
experience, declares to you aloud that you cannot
You may less ate against the current for the hour
| for the day. That is thing within human power
| like the clock over your entrance door. You may
put back the hands of that clock till shall seem
| as if the day grew younger instead Of waning. But
not the less will the sun, without, hold his ap-
parent course through the heavens and not the
less will the memorable dial, steady to truth, con-
unue to indicate the constant regularity of his pro-
gress.
| Do you still demand proof of these assertions
Then, ask you briefly to review, with me- the his
tory of the American protective system; to trace
its rse TO follow out It's progress; to note the symp
| toms, not to be mistaken, Of its decay.
In 1883 passed the first tariff bill. The
young republic had just brought to close an ex
pensve war; and her population, of less than -four
millions, had incurred national debt of nearly
eighty millions; equal, in proportion to debt oil
four hundred millions now. Her manufactures were
all IN their earliest infancy, many just struggling
into existence. Then, If ever high scale OF duty
was required and heavy prote ,tion was justi6able
Yet how do the rates of that primitive tariff compare
with our impositions ofto-day' On the single lux
ury OF carriages there a duty Of fifteen pei
cent; and on East india goods of twelve and hall
per cent With these exceptions, the highest rate
| of ad vaorem duty was fen per ceni. On such sta
pies iron, leather, saddlery, clothing, millinery
1t was seven and half per cent; and be this borne
in mind ON woolleu and cotton goods (the latter
but recently introduced) it was fus per cent. only
On sugar the duty was one cent. pound, on Goa
two cents bushel, and so of other articles
The tariff of 1870 increased but slightly these
rates And so again in 1894, and for many sue
ceeding years. Throughout nearly the first quarter
of a century after the establishment Of our govern
ment, ad valorem duty whatever higher than
twenty per cent. was imposed except a single
article of luxury, wines; and the specific duties
were a scale of similar moderation. 1t was moi
until the administrations OF Washington and Adams
and Jefferson and almost of Madison had passed
away, that men talked of twenty-five and thirty and
forty per cent. protective duties.
10 1916 it was that first began to copy, from
England, the policy of protection for projections
sake; and to raise the scale Of tariff duties, without
reference to revenue. This foreign plant seemed
for a brief space, to thrive in republican soil
The tariff bill of 1910 failed, it is true; but in 1924
and again in 1923 and 1892 the system, christened
in very defiance of its parentage, american, was
sanctioned and extended.
One thing, however is to be remarked and ought
tn be remembered The first tariffs, Of moderate