The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-11-04
THE UNION.
WEDNESDAY NIGHT, NOV. 4, 1876.
FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR TARIFF
LEGISLATION.


stituton was noble Adam Smith had Just before de-
monstrated TO sages and statesmen the muI.Ped anu
teeming benefits of liberal commercial Sys'eih'
Yet the whole policy ,of the British government
toward its colonies continued to be oaroarous' anu
they egislated ayowedly on the principle THAT the
Americans should not be permitted to manuta' ture
ave, hob.nail for themselves /" The British colo
MES were regarded mainly as tax-stations, and as
compulsory market for British manufactures, In
return for which, they were to sell their raw pro-
duee 10 England alone. Independence came in the
treaty of 1888, and brought with il to the thirteen
States, public debt of sixty-hve millions Of dol
lars. Three millions and half Of American poPula-
ton were TO be taxed pay this debt, and to raise
revenue sufficient TO carry on the general govern
ment. Such was the fiscal problem Of 1882 In
the face of il, Mr.. Madison at the first meeting oil
Congress in that year, proposed plain, simple REV.
snus tariff laying specific duties on seven enume-
rated articles, mot one of them, with the exception
of rum, produced in this counuy,) and imposing
horizontal ad vaors duly Of foe per cent on all other
articles This was Madison's policy in relation
to commercial restrictions, at moment when
revenue was most wanted, and when American
manufactures were Just beginning to recover from
the English colonial legislation which had sought
to abolish them altogether But even this taxation
the people Of the States could then hardly endure
Most reluctantly had they given up TO Congress the
taxing power; end in order, in some degree, to rec
once them to its exercise the idea OF incidental
protection 20 American manufactures was thrown
out. Mr.. Madison's plan accordingly some
a = - &
rous specific duties, and though the duty OF per
cent was retained upon all the principal articles OF
domestic manufacture, embracing cotton, woollen,
and iron manufactures yet the preamble of the hrs
tariff law, passed on the Alb Of July, 1889, set forth
that it was "necessary for the support Of tbe
government, for the discharge Of the debts
of the United States and the encouragement and pro-
l.etion Of manufactures, tina, duties be laid" &c
Strictly incidental protection, at The rate five per cent
and that too, introduced in order to propuate pso
pie reluctant to bear any taxation at all-such is the
protective policy which presents itself to us, as
coeval with the federal constitution
And uader such protection, in defiance Of British
| rivalry, American manufactures even at that early
day Of small means, grew and prospered. Two
years and half after this tariff of 1889 went into
operation, the protectionst, Hamilton in his celebra-
ted report upon manufactures in l79l wrote that the
manufacturing industry Of the country, including
manufactures of iron, cotton, wool, fax, and hemp,
was 10 a high state of prosperity. But the rev.
enue raised by the act Of 1879, not being sufficient
for the then emergency, second tariff law was
enacted the next year, and went into operation on
the lst of December, 1879. Looking to an increase
Ofrevenue, augmented the rates of duty upon the
principal revenue articles not produced in the coun-
try very considerably; and it raised the duty on the
principal protected articles from FIVE to only seven
and half per cent. adj vaorem. Hamilton apologized
for this advance of duty on the protected articles
in a special report. He considered it quite suff-
Gent protection, and asked for nothing more. Yet
at that very time and under both these first tariffs,
the first of five per cent, and then of seven and
half per cent, thus laid, incidental projection
upon the principal protected articles, was absolutely
less by almost ly per cent than was the general aver
age of duty laid by those laws on the main articles
Of import which were not produced in the country
at all, and in the duties upon which, protection, of
course, was not thought of Figures show this
beyond all doubt. Under the first tariff--that
100000, and the revenues were S2,239 746--being
average of almost Ten per cent, while the protected
articles under that tariff paid in general re per cent
Under the second arf-that of l790-the amount
of imports was $50, 100000, and the duties were
49, 40l 666-being an average Of thirteen and half
per ceni including advance in the duties on spr-
its by an act of March 3D., 179l Under this Sec
ond laws average of duty being thirteen and half
per cent-the protected articles paid, as we have
seen, only seven and a half per cent--and this to
the entire satisfaction of the protectionsts Of that
day. .r,.
The same general policy in relation to revenue
and protection continued through six successive
tariffs up to July ls 1912, when the state Of things
In the country was of course entirely changed by
the declaration of war with England, and war tariff
enacted. During all this interval Of more than
twenty-one years-from 1890 to 15l2-the general
average of taxation upon the whole amount of inn
ports went increasing at rate far greater than
that of the increase of duty upon the protected art
cles of domestic manufacture. The figures leave no
doubt of this most important and striking general
fact. The third tariff entitled an ''act to make fur
Their provision for the payment Of the public
debts" took effect on the Both June, l792 1t
continued two years. Under it, the average
rate of duty was twenty-five and half per cent,
nearly double the average rate of the proceed.
ing tariff Yet it left the rate of duty on the staple
articles of domestic manufacture, for the most part
unchanged. Protection still stood at seven and
halfper cent .aG .".. m.H# aHN
The fourth tariff took effect in June, 1884, and
being explained bya supplemental act Of the sue
ceeding January, it continued until June 30, 1897
1t gave general average Of duty at the rate of sr
teen per cent, while under it protected manufactures
paid generally temper cent. . ausa ..r1 4.
The fifth tariff, of 1897, raised the general average
Of duties to eighteen per cent, and the general rate
of duties upon protected articles of domestic manu-
facture to about twelve and half per cent. Manu-
facures Of iron, however, under this and tie two
/ preceding tariffs paid duty of fifteen per cent