The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1891-08-05
Review or Protective l. .gisIation.

A correspondent writes TO us from
Louisville, Ky, asking whether he is
right I'm maintaining that "previous to
1891 the tnted States did not have
protective tariff for n sufficient number
of years In succession 10 demonstrate
fully its good effects" and that "the
protection given was not SO high and
comprehensive as it should have been.
In the beginning of the Government
means of transportation and OF cOmmu
niCati II between the old and new world
were so costly and dangerous that a low
tariff rate was quite as effective in keep
Ing out foreign wares as was a rate many
times higher, after the Atlantic cable
and the six day steamship came to re-
duce cost, time, and risk involved in
overseas commerce. The duties which
the First Congress adjudged sufficiently
protective would afford almost no pro-
lection now, when foreign goods can be
brought here so cheaply, quickly, and
certainly Science and invention have
almost annihiIated the natural protec-
ton extended TO American industry Ia
1899 by the wide and terrible Atlantic.
Besides, il was not practicable 10 levy
extremely high duties before the new
industries had sufficiently developed to
insure an adequate supply Of domestic
products, As our productive capacity
expanded, the protective system,
in accordance with the policy out
lined by Alexander Hamilton in his
report on manufactures was extended
by subsequent acts 10 the number of
fourteen before the war OF 1912 broke
out. still our industries were yet young,
and tariff legis alton up 10 this time. in
most instances, had been only approach
ing the efficient protection which HaInil-
ton rec mmcnded, SO soon as a supply Of
domestic products was assured TO the
people.
During the war Of 1912, and several
years after, tariff legislation, while in
the main of decidedly protective char
acter, was too radical and uncertain TO
produce the results. The tariff of 1916
was intended to be protective, and its
principle of levying imposts was perhaps
more truly such than that Of any pre-
ccding tariff. But eXtrancous conditions
NOTABLY the sudden transition from the
excessive war tariff Of the years just
preceding it, and abnormally low prices
abroad, which came I'm its wake-neu-
tralized its effect SO that il disappointed
the expectation OF its friends. Nine
supplementary acts OF more or less
protective character were passed in the
succeeding years, the last in 1892. I'm
der such conditions, the fullest benefits
of protection could not reasonably be
expected.
In 1888 the course of tariff legislation
was reversed, and for the first time
tended toward free trade. The move
mcnt resulted in the panic OF 1887.
Popular sentiment compelled a return
to protection in 1912. Then came tho
free trade tariff Of 1896 made more rad
ical By the act OF 1857, which continued
TO the enactment Of the Morrill, tariff in
1851.
1t appears then, that our correspond
ent is quite right Never before the
war had the country enjoyed undis-
turbed and adequate protection for SO
long time accompanied by so reliable
assurances of its permanency, as has
been the case since the enactment OF the
Morrill, tariff And no other tariff period
can boast Of results so gratifying and
glorious American Economist