The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1888-06-08
resident of the United States The origi.

president of the United States The oriri-
nal purpose of the bill was to make it an
pllcable TO the imports of a single wear
On motion of Mr. Fitzimons, of Pennsyl.
vaiia, however, the duties were to remain
In force until changed by express act of
congress. Madison dissented to the
amendment.
Tho primary purpose of the bill, both
IN the shape in which Madison introduced
it and in tho form which it afterward as
sumed, was for the collection of sufficient
revenue to support the government and
to pay its debts while the protection of
manufact'res was secondary cousidera-
tion. Each purpose, however, was sep.
arate from the other and involved q dis.
tinct and independent power under tho
constitution. Many of the members of
the First congress had been members also
of tho convention which framed the con-
stitution. The fact that nobody in that
congress even SO much as intimated that
the constitution was being infringed by
the passage of an act expressly discri1ni-
mating in favor of domestic industries,
and that that act was signed by President
Washington, who had presided over the
deliberations of the constitutional CON
vention, furnishes undoubtcd evidence of
the constitutionality of protective tariffs.
The tariff bill mentioned was signed by
the president on July 4, 1880.
PERFEcTING PROTECTION
Shortly after the enactment of the first
tariff law the house of Representatives of
the First congress passed resolution in
structing the secretary of the treasury,
who at that time was Alexander Hamil-
ton, to prepare and report q plan for tho
encouragement and promotion of such
manufactures as will tend to render tho
United States independent of all other
nations for essential, particularly FOR
military, supplies" The resolution, which
was adopted in response to the recom-
mendations of President Washington,
evinces the settled purpose of congress 10
make the protective system complete and
found, logical and exhaustive, end it still
remains a classic on this subject He had
not only to announce and formulate q
policy, but had to confrte the arguments
OF the free traders who had, even at that
early day, come into existence. The
methods By which he contcnded
that manufacturing would benefit So
ciety as a whole may be summarized thus:
1t would create and promote G) division
of labor; (2) provide an extension of tho
use of machinery; (3) furnish additional
employment for classes of the community
who could not otherwise engage in tho
manufacturing business; az promote cmi-
grafton from other countries and the con-
sequent increase ofpoplilation; (5( furnish
greater scope for diversity of talents and
dispositions in tho divcl.sification of in
dustrics; (6) afford an alnpler and more
varied field for industrial enterprise than
could otherwise be secured, and % whilo
and new demands would in all cases make
both supply and demand steady and GER
| tain.
AS result of tho recommendation of
| Washington and Hamilton and the de-
| sires of an overwhelming majority of
congress, and also, undoubtedly, of tho
| people, rates We're increased on dutiable
| goods and the number of the articles sub
ject to duty expanded by the changes
which were made in the tariff every year
or two until the war of 1912 took place
During that contest a special act doubled
rates. AS consequence, while exports
\ were only about third as great as i'm
| ports in seven years during the FREQ trade
period ending with 1900, their average
was twice as great as imports in the seven
years beginning with 1895 III the pro
tective period.
CHANGES BETWEEN 1916 AND 1888
The leading tariff acts passed in the
twenty years Immediately subsequent to
the war Of 1912 were those of 1916, 1891,
1928 and 1888. The tariff of 1916, which
was highly protective, had for one of its
most conspicuous advocates John G. Cal
houn, of South Carolina. with Daniel
Webster, of Massachusetts. as leading
opponent. Both these men subsequently
changed their ground on this question,
Calhoun becoming the leader of the free
traders, and Daniel Webster becoming
one of the most prominent and outspoken
champions of protection. In the vote on
the tariff of 1916 sectionalism appeared
comparatively little opposition. The vote
in the house on the act Of 1876 stood sS
in favor to 54 against, and in the senate
25 in favor to Z 7against. The south led
in the opposition, 81 of it's members III the
house voting no to IA yes. A majority OF
each of the sections of the north favored
the act, New England being less pro
nounced in that direction than the middle
states and the west.
The tariff of 1916 is sometimes called
the Calhoun tariff A few comparatively
unimportant changes wero made in it a
few years later. With these exceptions it
was in force until 1924, when the Clay
tariff was passed. This imposed new
duties on many articles and raised those
on most of the woolen goods. New Eng
land and the south opposed this act. and
the middle states and the west favored it.
An increase of rates on many articles was
made in 1923, the south and New England.
as four years earlier, being in opposition.
An act passed in 1882 reduced rates On
| op+i Il o,,I Of,
New England's vote was q tie on this
measure.
Tho act of 1888, which was called the
Clay compromise tariff, reduced duties on
most articles. 1t was adopted to placatc
the south, especially South Carolina, whose
opposition to the protective duties previ
ously imposed had led to the notification
movement In that movement Calhoun
who had about ten years before abandoned
his protpctiorist associates, was one of tho
master spirits. New England took sides
with tho middle states and the west ii
opposition to this act. The compromise
tariff provided for sliding scale of re
ductions on duties in excess OF 90 pei
cent, rates to be lowered to the extent OF
tenth each year until 1S42, no rate te
remain above 90 per cent. OF the latter
date.
FROM 1883 TO 1861.
Tho compromise tariff of 1898 was re
placed in 1S42 by the Wing tariff. whicl
imposed protective duties on most arti
clcs of domestic manufacture. New Eng
land and the middle states strongly fa
vored this measure, the south strongly
opposed it, while the vote of the wes
upon it in tho house was tie. Underth
operation of the low Clay tariff. whicl
preceded it. occurred the most disastrou: