New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-11-12
PROTECTION IN AMERICA.
GEORGE TICKNOR CURTIS DISCUSSES THE
HISTORY OF TIE FIRST TARIFF.


CEEss-MR MADIsoH's vEws-N PETi-
TON FOR PEoTEcrIrN-rnE I'LL
As observation-disclosures FOR
COTTON GROWERS THE
LTs>oS or 1850.
To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: The great political issue Of our time -
whether the protection of our OWN manufactures
and industries against the injurious eject Of lo'-
eign competition In our own markets IS 10 re COZ
tinued overthrow The Democratic parry "S
1t Is organized and led has rromuiSa'e" ~
part of it's political creed the monsirous heiesy
that a protective tariff is unconstitutional 1t is
important. therefore. know how the ilrst Con-
gress that sat under the Constitution treated 'h's
subject. In tha; Congress there were t"eI'- MEM
bcrs who had been members Of the Federal 'o"-
vcntion which framed the Constitutions ten OF these
were members Of the House and two were mem
bers of the Senate The following l. the his'o'' u
the first revenue law
The Department Of Foreign Affairs was orgahZed
before that Of the Treasury and OF War The iTs'
revenue law was enacted before the law which es
tablished the Treasury Department. III thc us
cussons which took place on ih5 revenue mc'S-
IRE We may learn 10 what extent Protection was
then considered eXpe1icnt or incumbent on ION
cress as a constitutional Obligation he Dill 'h1'
was brought in contemplated. among the OBJECTS
for which revenue was Immediately necessary noi
only the support of the Government. but Inc oiS-
charge OF the debts of the United states. The
Constitution had made the debts contracted an"
The engagements entered into before its adoption
as valid against the United States under the Con-
slitution as they were under the Confederation
Whether this obligation was to extend 10 inc "eps
contracted by the separate States before The adol
ton of the Constitution was a question OF DOM
construction and policy What was 10 be done III
making provision for the discharge or debts con-
tracted by the United States; whether the revenue
Nd for he
credit was 10 include the State debts. were mat
tars that did not within the scope OF tenn
porary revenue system. which, although II were TO
include within its declared objects the discharge
of the debts of the United States. must be phi
marily designed to procure revenue for dcira! ing
the curren. expenses Of the Government Iy tax
ing the imports then coming in. How the duties
were TO be paid after they had been imposed Coud
only be provided for BY making them payable in
coin. Whether there would be specie enough IN
the country TO enable the importers to pay the dl-
ties was doubtful. How paper money was TO
be created was most important practical ques-
ton. All that could be done in framing the tenn
porary revenue system to lay the duties and
TO provide for their payment in coin
wide field thus opening for the exploration
Of questions of constitutional power. as we'll as OF
expediency. Much of this exploration could be made
only in framing the Treasury Department ana III
defining the duties of its head. The history OF
the formation of this Department is therefore eX-
tremely interesting in reference to both the person
who becomes it's first Secretary and to the great
measures which he devised.
MAIISON's VIEWS on PROTECTION
Madison. who had been concerned with IIami
ton in a strenuous effort to induce the States TO
establish the revenue system Of laSs now took Inc
lead in introducing and conducting through the
House OF Representatives ii measure for obtaining
the revenue needful for the support Of the new
Government. 1t seems TO have been his purpose
at first to make it temporary measure only, ana
TO frame and enact it in season 10 have il operate
on the importatons Of that spring. But it became
at once apparent that even IT, by general consent
the new law should be framed with this view there
was strong disposition to consider and act upon
the announcement and protection OF domestic man.
ufactures principle to be regarded at the out
set in the levyng OF duties on imports. The rev.
enue system proposed in 1883 had aimed only 10 pro-
cure for Congress authority 10 obtain revenue |
without relying acquisitions made upon the |
States. There then comparatively few manu- |
features in this country. and at the close Of the
Revolutionary War the great quantities OF manu- |
featured goods imported from Europe had at first |
rendered manufactures almost useless. Very |
considerable changes, however had taken place in |
the interval between the complete establishment |
independence and the inauguration Of the |
Government under the Constitution. Several |
had given impetus TO domestic
ufactures when the first Congress assembled I'M
der the Constitution There kinds Of
manufactures sufficient To answer the consumption
OF the whole Union. and others growing in i'm
portance much that it appeared likely that
materials could be worked up TO a point
at which articles made in this country could be
probably exported. IT contended. therefore,
very early that the question OF protection be
at the threshold of the legislation. Perceivng
this Mr.. Madison admitted that they might be I'M
der the necessity of investigating principles
extensively than ne had at first contemplated,
although he still maintained that the immediate
object Of obtaining revenue by a temporary meas
ure ought to be kept steadily in view In the obser
vations which he made at length April
he developed the principles which he supposed
the Representatives of the States ought 10 act. In
the first place. he reminded the Committee OF the
Whole that any system Of imports must be founded |
on mutual concessions by the States to each other
At the time. he brought forward very dis
tinctly the expectations and purposes OF the States
most advanced in population and ripe for manu-
featuring industries when they ratified the Con-
stituton He said that while these States retained
in their own hands the power of regulating trade
they had the power to cherish and protect their
own manufactures: but they had thrown
this power into other hands they must have done
so In the confidence that their interests would not
be neglected overlooked by the new Congress-
lie then proceeded to state the principles which he
thought should govern the legislation. He avowed
himself to be a friend to n very free system of
commerce, regarding il truth that commercial
shackles generally unjust. oppressive and i'm
polite and that capital labor IL left to their
own course. will generally be most productive and
IN more direct and certain way than the wis.
dom of the most enlightened legislature can devise.
This he held to be as true of national interests Of
the interests of individuals. whom no legislation
could compel or lead TO become manufacturers OF
all the articles they needed for their own consump-
ton. Freedom of trade. then, being the general |
principle TO be kept in view in adjusting the reeu-
lations of different countries. the departures from
IL must be exceptional arising of the peculiar
situation of the country for which the legislation !
designed.
The problem. he said. was TO discover the ex. |
ceptions TO the general principle free trade In
this country the first great exception was the in
tercs OF agriculture. the products Of the soil
whether spontaneous or cultivated. With a great !
abundance of cheap land. the United States en-. | ,
joyed. or might enjoy. as much of u monopoly in | {
agriculture any other nation had in any article ]