Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1884-07-04

and so great is the demand thaC
'iron furnished before the Revolu-
ton at an average of sixty-four
dollars per tom was then sold at
eighty Nails and spikes, made
in large part by boys,needed furth
er protection as 100000 pounds
had been imported the previous
year. Iron was wholly made by
'charcoal,' but there were several
mines of fossil coal already work
ed in Virginia. and "a copious sup
| ply of it would be of great value to
the iron industry Respecting 'cOt-
tom Mr.. Hamilton attached far
more consideration to its manufac-
| ture than to its culture. He dis
trusted the quality of that grown at
home because so far from the equa-
tor, and he wished the new facto-
ries in Road Island and Massachu-
setts to have the best articles at
the cheapest possible rate. To
this end the repeal of the Scent
duty on cotton levied the proceed
ing year was Indispensable He
argued that mot being, like hemp,
an universal production of the
country, cotton affords less assur-
ance of an adequate internal sup
ply If the duty levied on glass
should not prove sufficient induce.
ment to its manufacture, he would
stimulate 'by a direct bounty
"Mr. Hamilton's conceptions Of
an enlarged plan of "protectiOn'
included not only "prohibitive du
ties,' but when necessary, a system
of Tbounties and premiums in ad'
dition. He was earnestly opposed
to a 'capitation tax and declared
such levies as an income tax to be
'unavoidably hurtful to industry.
Indirect taxes were obviously pre-
ferred by him wherever they were
practicable. Indeed upon any
/ other system of taxation he be-
lieved it would prove impossible
for the Republic of 1870 to endure
the burden imposed upon thepubliC
Treasury by the funding of the
debt of the Revolution. More
promptly than any other financiel
of that century he saw that ten
dollars could be more easily col
lected by indirect tax than one dol
lar by direct levy, and that ht
could thus avoid those burden
some exactions from the people
which had proved so OnerOus in
T Europe, and which had just aided
in precipitating France into bloody
revolution.
Wmportant and radical additions
to the revenue system promptly
followed Mr.. Hamilton's recon
mendations. From that time on
ward, for a period of more than
twenty years, additional tariff
laws we're passed by each succeed
f ing Congress modifying and gen
, orally increasing the rate of duties
first imposed and adding many
new articles to the dutiable list
J When the war of 1872 was reached
, a great but temporary change was
, made in the tariff laws by increas
,, ing the entire list of duties 100 pei
cent, simply doubling the rate il
, every case. Not content with this
sweeping and wholesale increase Of
E duty, the law provided an addi
tional 10 per cent. upon all goods
imported in foreign vessels, beside:
collecting an additional tonnage
tax of one dollar and half per tor
on the vessel. OF course this was
war legislation, and the act was tC
expire within one year after a trea
ty of peace should be concluded
! with Great Britain. With the ex
perience of recent days before him
I, the reader does not need TO Dc re
minded that onder the stimulus o.
this extraordinary rate of duties
manufactures rapidly developed
,, throughout the country. Impor
|, tations from England being abso
lutely stopped by reason of the wal
and in large part excluded from
other countries by high duties, the
American market was for the frs
time left substantially or in large
degree to American manufacturers
with all the disadvantages
which so sudden and so extreme 6
policy imposed on the people, the
progress for the four years of these
extravagant and exceptional duties
was very rapid and undoubtedly
, exerted lasting influence on the
industrial interests of the United
States. But the policy was moi
J one which commanded genera
support. Other interests came for
ward in opposition. New England
was radically hostile to high du
ties. for the reason that they Sc
riously interfered with the ship
ping and commercial interest in
which her people were largely en-
gagged. The natural result, more
over, was a sharp reaction, in
which the protective principle
suffered. Soon after the treaty Of
Client was signed movements were
made for a reduction of duties, and
the famous tarih Of 1916 was the
result.
ain examining the debates on
that important act it is worthy OF
notice that Mr.. Clay, from an ex'
treme Western State, was urging a
| high rate OF duties on cotton fab
| rics, while his chief opponent was
/ Daniel Webster, then a RepreSen'
tative from Massachusetts. An
additional and still stranger tea'
ture of the debate is found when
| mr.. Calhoun, cooperating with
Mr.. Clay, replied to Mr.. Websters
free-trade speech in an elaborate
defense of the doctrine of protec-
ton to our manufactures.
L H.. la