Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1882-04-06
The Reform ofthe Tariff.
SPEECH
HON. GRO. /. PENDLETON
Senate OF the United State 8. Friday,
March IL, 1859.

The Senate as IN Committee OF the
Whole, having under consideration the
bill Is. No. 22) to provide for the appoint
ment of a commission to investigate the
question of the tariff and internal reve-
nue. laws.
Mr.. Pendleton said:
Mr.. President:-I shall not delay a vote
on this measure. which know its friends
are anxious to have as soon as possible;
what | have to say, relates more to the
general subject than to methods of gath
ering informatiOn-mOre to the general
principles which should govern our con-
clusions than to the special provisions Of
the bill which should be passed. The ac-
tion taken elsewhere-as by our rules |
must so express myself when alluding to
the House of Representatives-lead me
to believe that We shall best accomplish
the purpose of speedy and satisfactory
reform of the tariff, which every Senator
processes to desire, if the committee of
Congress shall at once address themselves
to the preparation of the bill.
The real difficulties of the tariff ques-
ton, as matter of practical legislation,
arise out of the vast and complicated de-
tails necessary to be ad djusted. The ar
Classification so difficult, their uses so var
led, the proper relation of duty on raw
material and on the manufactured article,
the gradations of amount when duties
are levied on an ad valorem or specific
basis, the point where revenue fails and
exclusion begins--these, and very many
more such details make up the real diff
Guilty of the tariff question.
II it were possible to reduce the issue
purely and simply to absolute free trade
on the one side and absolute protection
on the other-if we should discard alto
gether the idea of a tariff for revenue
there woul@ be no necessity for consider
ing these details, and much of the diff
Guilty would disappear.
On such an issue think it would not be
difficult to show that the simple rule
which every man applies in his ordinary
and private transactions, ito buy where
he can buy the cheapest and sell where
he can sell dearest" would be an equal
ly wise tenet of economic philosophy
when applied to the whole people. l
think it would be easy to show that
tariff for protection only, does not differ
i'll essence from the grant of bounty to
to the producer of a protected article.
Bounties are paid out of the treasury,
and the treasury is supplied by taxes
levied on all the people. A tariff for
protection enables the protected produc-
er to charge all his customers larger
price than if he completed with the fol-
eign article. If constitutional argu-
ment exists against the grant of public
money as bounties for the benefit of indi-
viduaIc who prntnca cnrtoip ortiol.c tba
same argument exists against a tariff for
protection only. If the whole body of
the people may not be taxed in order
that the money collected may be given,
under the name of bounty, to some who
are pursueing special industries for pri.
vate gains. SO also the whole people may
not be compelled in any way, however
indirect, to pay larger price to the same
persons for the products of those indus
tries. If every article and every industry
should be protected, and every person be
made to pay larger price for every ar
ticle he consumes, the extra price he
pays for everything except his own pro-
duct would be fully equal to any advan-
tage he might derive from the protection
him; and if any person has a
right to demand that his production or
industry shall be protected, every person
has the same right to relatively equal |
protection. I will not elaborate the ar.
sument. AS between free trade and a
tariff solely for protection, without ref
erence to revenue at all, the argument,
on the score of principle, constitutional
law, and beneficial results, is clearly in ia
Vor of freedom of trade.
And the argument maintains much of |
It's strength when applied as between a
tariff for revenue only and tariff for
protection only.
The Senator from Maine Mf. Frye
has gone further than any modern polit-
Ical economist whom l remember. He
declared that he is protectionist from
principle; that il there was no public
lebt, no interest to pay, no pension list,
10 army and no navy to support, q use
lis words,) he would still oppose free
rade and its twin sister tariff for revenue
)nly, and favor protective duties. l
hink he has no large following in the
Senate. AS far as l have observed, he
las no large following in the country.
| will not argue that question. Such
IN issue cannot rise under our present
conditions. The Federal Government
needs large revenue. 1t has raised its
'evenue, much of the time entirely, al
ways in great part, from tariff duties.
Until we shall abandon this system, and
ely on internal taxation for the supply
If the federal treasury, we must have
ariff for revenue. We can neither in
lulge in absolute protection, and thus
nave no revenue from duties, nor in alb
,olute free trade, and thus have no rev.
,nue from duties. We must have tariff |
.or revenue, and we ought to SO grade it
Is, whilst raising sufficient revenue, to
impose the least burthen and do the least
larm to every interest involved.
AS | have said, the adjustment of de-
tails constitutes the real difficulty. The
argest attainable revenue with the least
ourthen is the rule which should be adopt
I'd; and the free list, rates, classifications,
should be regulated accordingly. This
'equires vast and varied and accurate
of all the different interests,
all the numerous raw materials, all the
articles, all the products
If our soil and industry, all the necesSi-
les of agricultural development, all the
ust claims of our labor, of all the pro
luctions and the legislation of the c0un-
ries with which we deal. and the most
aithful and painstaking application of
hat knowledge.
The far-reaching effect of tariff duties
S not always apparent. For instance. the
larry products of our country are very
arge. They probably exceed those of all
They can be produced cheaper
,ut there is aduty on sugar, and duty
If 35 per cent, on tin, out of which the
proper cans are made. This duty on tin
prevents our dairymen from having the