The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-10-11

been denominated the first protective tariff
Our author, for his part. IL inclined to
question whether II can fairly he described
AS a protective tariff He does not.
of course, dispute that an exceedingly
strong majority Of the Fourteenth Con-
gress was. at the out set, In favor OF Offer
ing substantial encouragement to home
industries The assertion was made re-
peatedly during the early part OF the first
session. and nc one took exception to IT,.
that all the members Of the House but OF o
were in favor Of that policy. and the only
difference bet ween them was the degree
Of protection which il was expedieht 10
grant. A certain amolnn Of hostility to
manufacturers did, indeed, develop dur
ing the debate, bu, IL was not iii ense and
widespread enough to control ,hs action
OF the House. except when the division wa s
close between the moderate and the high
protectionists. John Randolph was the
only conspicuous member who was all tho
time hostile to protection. Our authors
investigations have convinced him that
it would he easy to show that more than
three-fourths of the members Of the House
Of Representatives voted at least once in
favor Of rates for which there was no other
excuse than the desire to protect some
industry by means of duties.
On all the warmly controverteti questions.
however, the advocates Of low duties car
red their point. Thus the iron makers.
who complained Of the rate OF duty on lar
and rod iron reported by the Committee OF
Ways and Means. and who asked for
higher rate. saw even the specific duty
that had been proposed by the committee
cut down 10 per cent. The sugar growers,
who asserted that four cents pound was
too low. could obtain hut two and half
cents from the House; they afterward
secured half cent additional from the
Senate. The wool duty reported by the
committee was first reduced one-half and
then rejected altogether. Woollen goods,
on which the Secretary of the Treasury
had recommended duty OF ~ per cent
came out of the conflict better than most
OF the articles as to which there was con-
tention. for Congress granted rs per cent.
for three years and 20 per cent thereafter.
1t was on cotton goods that the protective
policy met with the most serious check
The programme had been duty of 80 l-3
per cent. without limit az to time, and
minimum valuation clause which would
shut out India cottons altogether. The
cotton manufacturing interest rescued
from the contest merely duty OF IS per
cent for three years and 20 per cent. there-
after, and a minimum valuation clause
which was practically suspended for the
first OF the three years In other words.
~ kaI, for
year longer the very evil which had caused
the distress Of the cotton manufacturers
and closed most OF their mills; we refer,
Of course, to the competition of cheap
India cottons. 1t saw not only the cotton
manufacture, but many other industrial
interests. suffering keenly from foreign
competition which the existing customs
duties werc not sufficient 70 ward Oh from
the home producers. and it professedy
undertook to protect them by new tariff
actually much lower than that under which
the home producers had met with disaster,
Our author submits that this fact is SUI
fcient to show that the tariff Of 1919 was
not what the Members Of Congress- who
voted for il intended /, should he, for they
certainly supposed that they were passing
a moderately protective measure. 1t was
due to extraneous conditions rather than
to the working Of the act itself that the
tariff of 1919 has been classed "a a pro-
tective measure.
What were the causes that led tho Four
teenth Congress, cons ciously or uncon-
sciously, to forego its original purpose Of
encouraging manufactures by duties franz d
l,,t TO hat ,lp. ~ hA
wa disclosed by the adoption Of an am nd
ment postponing for year the ops ration of
the minimum valuation clause. The ship
ping interest was still at the time Of much
greater Importance than the manufact uring
interest. II tho country was grateful 20
those who had supplied its wants by en-
4aging in new industrial enterprises, ii
had still greater rear on for gratitude toward
the M reliant marine. which had furni- he'd
sailors, and had fitted out successful priva-
teers. 1t was we'll enough to foster the
young industries, but they must not be
nourished at the expense Of the great ship
building and ship owning communities.
So far, moreover, as the New England
members We're concerned. Mr.. Stanwood
points out that the votes Of some of them
cannot he explained fully without con-
sidcration of partisan politics -The FEEDER
allist party was virtually dead, but there
were still few members Of Congress who
had been elected as Federalists The Re-
publicans, who had controlled the Govern
mont sine, March 4, 1901, had gradually
adopted the fundamental principles OF their
defeated opponents, and none more thor
oughly than the principle of protection.
Thus It came to past that the lingering
Federalists in Congress were driven into a
rejection Of the doctrine so ably set forth
by their former great leader, Hamilton,
not merely by their local interest in favor
of shipping. but by natural tendency to
oppose whatever the ruling party pro-
posed" Another reason for the failure OF
the Fourteenth Congress to carry out its
original purpose OF encouraging manufact-
ures by duties intended for protectio
solely may be found in the jealousy Of the
partisans OF particular industries and In
their intolerance toward the intere Ia of
distant States. The obst ruction arising
from these sources is exempifed in the
objections Of Northern members to pro-
tecting duty on sugar, and In the unwilling
ness Of Southern members to give protec-
ton to cotton manufactures. Then, again.
on the question Of protection TO iron, the
North and the South united against the
Middle States.
Sectional division was still more pro-
nounced in the debating and voting on
the Tariff bill OF 1924 Here the singular