The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1892-09-15
TARIFF LEGISLATION IN THE
UNITED STATES.

cult question that confronted it ives
how to raise d sufficient revenue. That
was paramount TO everything else, for
without money the wheels of government
could not be set IN motion and without
the speedy and permanent organization OF
the new government the union itself was
endangered. According TO the Iconstltutltn
congress was empowered to LAY and col
lect taxes, duties, imposts and excuses to
pay the debts and provide for the COM
mon defense and general welfare of the
United States" but In what way this pow
er was to be exercised had to be deter
mined with extreme care IN view of the
decided opposition showing itself among
the people agairs! aging additional taxes
Ii the government could be run without
money it would receive their sanction
but 10 add national tax. to the already
exorbitaut state and county taxes was IN
their estimation adding the last ounce to
break the back of the suffering people.
Naturally with the people IN such mood
direct taxation, a system with which they
were familiar, was deemed inexpedient
and unwise, and upon the urgent advice
of Hamilton, secretary Of the treasury,
duties we're levied upon imports, and an
excise TAX was placed on several articles,
notably whiskey. The tax on whiskey
created a wide spread discomfort, and the
threats of dissolution heard in many
quarters exhibited the feelings entertain
ed towards taxation for national pur-
poses. Obviously sufficient revenue could
not be provided by any method of taxa
ton that could be directly felt. There
was no such opposition to duties on
imports because the people failed to
realize the tax they were paying. Wrap
ped up in piece OF calico it became IN
visible and hence easy of collection. Thus
stress of circumstances seemed to lndl-
cate that the easiest mode of taxation,
namely the indirect, was the best to adopt.
The first tariff act whose primary pur-
pose was to provide revenue was one of
the first acts passed by congress and
since It's preamble declared that one of
its objects was the encouragement and
protection of manufacture it must be
looked upon as introducing the so-called
protectionist policy. But it should not be
inferred that the system in its inciplency
was at all calculated to transform this
country from an agricultural to .manufac-
turing basis. Even Hamilton entertained
no such extravagant ideas. 1t was first
of all intended to provide a revenue and
incidentally to foster those manufacture
ing industries that had already in a nat
ural way gained foothold IN this eoun-
try, and through stimulating these to
create class of supporters of the govern
ment irrespective of parties. The duties
levied averaged ten per cent. and this
moderate tariff with slight notifications
remained in force up to the war of 1872,
when in order to secure the necessary
funds the easiest way to carry on the war
the duties on imports were doubled. The
natural result of these increased duties
together with the fact that no goods were
received from England during the war
which lasted several years, was sudden
and large increase Of manufactures.
When after the close of tho war the arti-
fetal conditions that led to the creation
of these infant industries were in danger
OF being removed and old rates restored
such wall characterization went up from
the manufacturing states, such long men,
orials were received by congress setting
forth the dire consequences If the tariff
were lowered that congress was fain to
believe that sudden change in the pol,
icy might bring disaster upon the couu-
: try. Continue the present schedule a
while longer and we'll be in position to
get along without governmental support
was the burden of the petitions, and the
tariff of 1916 was the result. This was
still moderately protective but was per-
meated by the principle that revenue was
the first end In view, and that protection
should be extended to only those indus
tries that owed their origin to the legis-
lation made necessary by the war. 1t is
a notable fact that this early tariff legis-
lation was advocated by no particular
party and that the constitutional ques-
ton as to the right of levy1ng such duties
was not once brought up. Calhoun, who
was to become in course of time the most
pronounced opponent of the system, was
found in the ranks of its adherents. lie
favored the act of 1916 because as he de-
clared" as means of defense our domestic
industry should be encouraged especially
that part that provides the necessary ma
terials for clothing and defense" Web
ster on the other hand bitterly opposed
the ''obsolete system of protection"
Although the act of 1916 provided for
duties avera ging about q per cent.
the manufacturers claimed that it did
not suffice to protect their industries.
Many of the new industries had depend
ed thus far on the artificial market Great
Ell b. the war besides the restrictive tariff,
add hence when the financial crisis bound
to follow great war began many of
them could not stand the strain and
went under. In spite of the tariff they
coald not compete in certain lines with
England because they had depended too
much on It's prohibitory character and
had failed to give sufficient attention to
improvements IN machinery to cut down
expenses of production as the English
had done. But the distress of the coun-
try was not feigned but real and it
was dexterously used by the protec-
tlonists to further their desires, and the
tariff of 1924 was passed. This was
the first tariff distinctively protective.
1t was opposed by both Webster and