The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-15
THE FIRST TARIFF BILL.

against the pending tariff bill Senator Tur-
pie said
Now, if it were possible to frame a reve-
nue. Dill upon the model of the first tariff
Dill passed in 1883, a strictly revenue bill
lncludlng the rates to such articles of COM
merce as had come into the world since
that time we might by such a bill raise
revenue sufficient to meet the expenditures;
put as the States are now represented in
this chamber and the people now
represented in the other body it is impOS-
sioe to frame tariff bill of this character.
The impression sought to be conveyed
was that the tariff of 1889, passed by the
first Congress, many of whose members
were in the convention that framed the
Constitution, was "a strictly revenue bill, 4"
or in other words a tariff for revenue only.
This is not true. The circumstances of the
passage of the bill as well as the bill itself
show it was intended and understood to
be protective of American Industries as
they then existed.
When the new government was organ
lied it was deeply in debt and lad not even
the means Of defraying current expenses.
There was immediate and pressing need of
revenue. Early in the session James Mad
ison Introduced resolution lin the House
of Representatives declaring that certain
duties ought to be levied on goods, wares
and merchandise imported into the United
States.' In presenting the resolution Mr..
Madison said his object was to provide
a national revenue and enable = govern
ment ito revive those principle - honor
and honesty that have too .onA KIN dor
mant' The bill as introduced ~ Mr..
Madison did not aim at protection nor at
the establishment of a permanent system
1t provided only for ls ying duties on the
spring importations of the following year
The next day Mr.. Fitzs:mons, a represent
tive from Pennsylvania, suggested that
the temporary plan contemplated by Mr.
Madison's bill should be converted into a
permanent one, and that the principle of
protection for American manufactures
should be embodied. He therefore proposed
to increase the duties, saying: Il have
prepared myself with an additional number
of duties, which 1 wish subjoined to those
already mentioned in the motion on your
table, among them some calculated to
encourage the productions of our country
and protect our infant manufactures" Mr.
Fitzsimons as we'll as Mr.. Madison, had
been member of the convention that
framed the Constitution. Mr.. Madison ac-
cepted Mr.. Fitzsimons's amendment, there
by admitting the soundness and constitu
tionalty of the principle of protection. In
giving his assent to the amendment, he
said: Il have no objection to the commit
tees accepting the proposition offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania. r
I think some of the propositions may be
productive of revenue, and some may pro-
tect our domestic manufactures" etc. This
was a distinct recognition of the propriety
of laying duties for revenue and protec-
ton. The discussion that followed devel-
opad some opposition to protection but it
made it's way Roger Sherman, of Connec-
ticut a signer of the Declaration of indie
pendence and a member of the convention
that framed the Constitution and one of
the greatest lawyers of the time, moved to
lay a protective duty on manufactured to-
bacco, though he remarked that "he
thought the duty ought to amount to a
prohibition" His motion was adopted. Mr..
Carroll, of Maryland, not Charles Carroll,
signer of the Declaration, but Daniel Car
roll, one of the trainers and signers of the
Constitution, moved a duty on window
and other glass" on the alleged ground
that "a manufacture of this article was
begun in Maryland and attended with con-
siderable success" The motion was agreed
to- Mr.. Clymer of Pennsylvania, another
signer of the Declaration of Independence
and Trainer of the Constitution moved a
duty on paper, saying that as the paper
mills of his State had grown up under
legislative encouragement, it was wise to
continue it," His motion prevailed Mr..
Araes, of Massachusetts, the great Fisher of
that name, moved a protective duty on the
manufacture of wool cards and insisted that
under proper protection they could be made
as good and as cheap as those imported
from abroad. The soundness of this view
has since been demonstrated a thousand
times. Mr. Ames motion was agreed TO.
And so thu discussion continued. Before
it ended it covered the whole ground of the
constitutionality Of protection, the duty of
Congress TO extend it, and the right of the
States to expect that it would exercise in
their behalf a power which they had sur
rendered to the national government. The
result was the passage of tariff bill
which, while primarily for revenue, was
also distinctly protective in many of it's
features, The bill passed both houses by
large majorities and was approved by
Washington, who in his last message to
Congress said the encouragement OF man
ufactures was IAN object of too much i'm
portance not to insure a continuation of
the efforts of Congress in every way which
shall appear eligible From what has been
said it is evident that when Senator Turpie
characterized the first tariff bill, passed in
1889. as "a strictly revenue bill bill
which did not recognize the doctrine of
protection, he misrepresented the truth, of
history.
xxrxE SON uARExEIN AMI MINERS,