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

| couraging the manufacture Of them within
! this State and the United States OF Amer
ica.- Pennsylvania. which had begun with
! low duties, soon adopted the protective
principle. In l7s5. it gave to its tarih law
the title: An act to encourage and pro-
tect the manufactures of this State by
laying duties on certain manufactures
which interfere with Them Under the
circumstances, ii seems impossible TO main
tain that the First Congress under the
Constitution was not aware of the signifi-
canoe Of the phrase which appears in the
preamble Of the tariff act Of 1880, -the EN-
couragement and protection of manu-
factures," or that il intended something
different from the Specification ordinarily
given to the phrase at the present day
IL.
In a chapter on "The First Tariff" our
author concurs with those protectionists
who deem it too plain for argument that
Q measure which in its preamble avowed
that one OF its aims was "the encourage
ment and protection Of manufactures
was intended to effect that object. II is
indeed, hard to dispute the constitution
atty Of protective legislation. when it
appears that the second public act signed
by President Washington, an act passed
by Congress in which sat many men who
had helped to frame the Constitution. was
In itself an act Of protective legislation
and was passed without the expression
of the slightest doubt in any quarter as
to the power to levy duties for such pur-
pose. To Mr. Stanwood It seems inn
possible TO come to any other conclusion
than that the purposes Of Congress were
accurately stated in the preamble to the
first tariff law. No doubt the duties i'm
posed were low but the act was a pro-
tective measure in the same sense IA the
acts of 1924 and OF 1890 were protective
measures The members Of the first Con-
gress went as far in the direction Of pro-
lection az in their inexperience they dared
to 60.
The tariff act Of July 4. 1850. was an ex-
peri mental measure. BY it's terms it was
to continue in operation less than seven
years. and, az a matter Of fact. it was super
seclNd by the act of Aug. 10, 1870, which
came into operation on the LIST Of December
in the last named year, In his first annual
address, President Washington said that
the safety and interest of a free people
required that they should promote such
manufactures as should tend to render,
them independent Of others for essential.
particularly military, supplies In later
paragraph he said: THE advancement
of agriculture commerce and manu- dctu-es
by all proper means will not, trust, need
One week after the
delivery of this address. that is TO say, on
Jan. IS, 1880, the House of Representatives
ordered that ~it be referred to the Secretary
of the Treasury to prepare and report to
this house proper plan or plans. con-
formally to the recommendation OF the
President Of the United States in his speech
to both houses of Congress-, for the en-
and promotion Of such manu-
factories az will tend to render the United
States independent Of other nations for
essential, particularly for military, sup
plies" 1t was in obedience to this order
that Alexander Hamilton prepared and,
on Dec. S. 1901, communicated to the Second
Congress his r port on Manufao ures.'
which ranks amrng the ablest OF the State
papers Mr.. Stanwood has undertaken
TO summarize this remarkable treatise.
although he recognizes the almost insuper-
able difficulty Of rewriting Hamiltons
argument in br'e'er form. The document,
which is here condensed, must be recog-
nized as the foundati and storehouse Of
the arguments for protection in the United
States.
Every candid reader will concur probably
with Mr.. Stanwood in pronouncing it impos-
sible to treat Hamilton report as anything
but plain, Straightforward, uncompromis-
Ing argument for protection. The aues-
ton, however, has been raised whether
the report represented protectionist
sentiment domir ant at the time and And
ing expression in Federal legislation. DR..
H. c. Adams. for example, in his Taxation
in the United States, l7s9-lsl8,' has con-
tended that the protecticnism Of the
eighteenth century should be differentiated
from that which acquired ascendancy af, er
the War Of 1879. Our author conceces
some OF DR., Adams's premises but does not
admit his conclusions. He holds, FOR ex
ample, that the revenue bill of 1892. which
was passed in the House OF Representatives
by vote Of 81 to 20 and was ratified by
the Senate without any change 10 the rate
of duties, was distinctly. protectionist.
though the protection Afforded might be,
and was, described rs inc dental to revenue
No other deduction seems possible from
the speech in which Mr. Murray of Mary
land. defending the bill in the House OF
Representatives. reviewed the proceedin
by which the measure had attained its
ultimate form. Replying to the objection
that it was a protective measure, he d.
rected attention 70 the fact that every
local interest which had asked for pro-
lection had been gratified, as. for example,
the hemp and cotton Of the South and the
iron OF the Middle States The predomi-
nant feature Of the bill, he said. was it's
national scope, giving, as it did, impartial
and, 20 far az circumstances allowed, equal
Just ice and encouragement TO the interests
of the respective States. In the early
stages Of this bill, Mr. Murray continued,
several gentlemen complained uf the
preference shown to the manufacturing
parts OF the country. and it was said that
the protecting duties would operate ex-
cllsively in the Eastern States. When,
however, OH the completion Of this bill, we
zee the reciprocity under which tie agri-
cultural and the manufacturing interests
have been viewed and cherished, we must
be forced to own both the liberal and con-
ciliating spirit with which the House has
been moved. as we'll as the mutual de-
pendence on which these apparently OPP
pOaite interests really are SUMMARIZED