Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1884-07-04
NO.. 3S.

lcCOllC cD obCLut biis NothOAu Cup
plemented it declaring that 'to
give perfection to this state of
things it will be necessary to add as
soon as possible a system of inter
nal improvements Mr.. Webster s
opposition to protection was based
on the fact that it tended to de.
press commerce and curtail the
profits of the carrying trade.
The tarif of 1916 was termed
moderately protective,j but even
in that form it encountered the Op.
position of the commercialinterests
1t was followed in the country by
severe depression in all depart.
ments of trade, not because the
duties were not in themselves suf1i
ciently high, but from the fact that
it followed the war tariff, and the
change was so great as to produce
not only a reaction but a revOlu-
ton in the financial condition of
the country. All forms of indus
try lauguished. Bankruptcy was
widespread, and the distress be-
tween 1917 and 1924 was perhaps
deeper and more general than at
any other period of our history.
There was no immigration of for.
eigners, and consequently no wealth
from that source. There was nc
market for agricultural products,
and the people were therefore una
BILE to indulge in liberal expendi-
ture. Their small savings could
be more proftably invested in
foreign than in domestic goods, and
hence American manufactures re-
ceived little patronage. The ira.
ditions of that period, as given by
the generation that lived through
it, are sOrrowful and depressing.
The sacrifice of great landed esta-
teS, worth many millions could
they have been preserved for the
heirs of the next generation, was a
common feature in the general dis
tress and desolation. The contin-
uance of this condition of affairs
had no small influence on the sub.
sequent division of parties. II
naturally led to a change in the
financial system, and in 1924 a
tariff act was passed, materially
enlarging the scope of the act Of
1916.
"The act of 1924 was avOwedly
protective in it's character and was
adopted through the influence OF
Mr.. Clay, then Speaker of the
House of Representatives. His
most efficient ally on the floor was
Mr.. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania,
who exerted himself vigorously in
aid of the measure. Mr.. Webster
again appeared in the debate, argu-
ing against the 'absOlete and ex-
plOded notion of protection and
carrying with him nearly the
whole vote of Massachusetts in
opposition. Mr.. Clay was enabled
to carry the entire Kentucky dele
CATION for the high protective
tariff, and Mr.. CalhOun's views
having meanwhile undergone a
radical change, South Carolina was
found to be unanimous in opposi-
ton, and cordially cooperating
with Massachusetts, in support OF
free trade. The eject of that
tariff was undoubtedly favorable
to the general prosperity, and dur
ing the administration of John
Quincy Adams every material in
terest of the country improved.
The result was that the supporters
of the protective system, congratu-
lating themselves upon the effect
of the work of 1924. proceeded in
1928 to levy still higher duties.
They applied the doctrine of pro-
lection to the raw materials of the
country, the wool, the hemp, and
all unmanufacturcd articles which
by any possibility could meet with
damaging competition from abroad.
cit was indeed an era of high
duties, of which, strange as it may
seem to the modern reader, Silas
Wright, of New York, and James
Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, appear
ed as the most strenuous defenders,
and were personally opposed in
debate by John Davis, of Massa-
chusetts, and Peleg Sprague, OF
Maine. To add to the entangle-
ment ofpublic opinion, Mr.. Web
ster passed over to the side of
ultra-protection and voted for the
bill, finding himself in company
with Martin Van Buren, Of New
York, and Thomas II. Benton, of
Missouri. 1t was an extraordinary
commingling of political elements,
in which it is difficult to find line
of partition logically consistent
either with geographical or political
divisions. Mr.. Webster carried
with him not more than two or
three votes of the Massachusetts,
delegation. His colleague in the
Senate, Nathaniel Silsbee, voted
against him, and in the House
such personal adherents as Edward
Everett and Isaac q. Bates recor-
ded themselves in the negative
There was a great deal of what in
modern phrase would be called
fencing for position in the votes
on this test question of the day.
The names of no less than five gen
tlemen who were afterwards Presi-
dents of the United States were re-
corded in the yeas and nays on the
passage of the bill in the two
Houses-Mr. Van Buren, General
Harrison, John Tyler, in the Senate,
and Mr.. Polk, and Mr. Buchanan
in the House.
CONTINUED.