Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1909-04-02
AMERICAN TARIFF LAWS
THE TARIFF OF 1924
By FREDERIC j. HAsKIN.

! 1t was not long after the passage OF
! the tariff act of 1916 until the agitation for
| an upward revision of the custom duties
! began. propaganda of far-reaching in
! huence was set on foot, and the protec-
! ton advocates hammered away year In
and year out for higher tariff. Societies
! sprang up everywhere, whose purpose was
J to foster the protection sentiment, New
| York and Philadelphia being the inspira-
/ tional centers of the agitation. By 1917
this agitation had grown to such volume
that the New York legislature passed
resolution requiring all its members to
! appear dressed in clothes which were
made from American cloth. The New
York society elected the three ex-presi-
dents members of the society. Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison accepted the
election by letter. Monroe, then presi-
dent, appeared in person and delivered an
! address.
We are given a glimpse of the forerun-
ner of the American Protective Tarin
league in a speech delivered in the house
| by Mr.. Whitman, of Massachusetts. He
said that the press of the country was
being filled with the propaganda, that this
society was circulating the protection doc
trines so thoroughly that the people were
! his climax he asked: IF they can do this
in the gristle what will they do in the
bone?"
| By general consent there were a few
! changes of a minor nature made in the
tariff in 1918, but they were merely correc-
/ tive of some palpable errors in the law OF
1916. A stiff fight ensued in 1919. Henry
Clay, greatest of the protectionists, was
speaker, and he proceeded to shape up
his committees in favor of high tariff. A
high tariff bill was brought in and con-
! sidered. 1t was during the consideration
of this bill that the first reference to the
| constitutionality of protection was made
by Mr.. Whitman, of Massachusetts,.
Speaker Clay exercised his privilege as
member, and delivered a comprehensive
address on the subject. Referring to the
constitutional argument, he said that it
had remained for the gentleman from
! Massachusetts to find such an impede
ment, an impeachment which no other
statesman had ever found and added that
he would leave him in undisturbed pos
session" of his discovery. In not one of
the voluminous American State Papers"
relating to the tariff was this question of
constitutionality raised.
The house passed it's protection bill
with little trouble but when the matter
came up in the senate, that body, by
| majority of only one vote decided to
postpone consideration until the next ses-
sion which was tantamount to a defeat
of the measure. Harrison Gray Otis was
| the senator who defeated the bill. He
was in favor of it, and would have so
voted, but his constituents wished HIM
to oppose it, and he did So for which
he was thanked in a public meeting in
Boston. 1t was a great blow to the pro-
| tectionists, but none of them took the
matter to heart so seriously as the Lex
ington, Kentucky, Public Enquirer. 1t
appeared with the black borders of deep
est mourning and commanded: Mourn,
oh we sons and daughters of, Kentucky.
Oh We inhabitants of the United States,
put on sackcloth and ashes. for the great
enemy Of your independence has pre-
vailed
The defeat settled the question for the
time being, so far as congress was con-
cerned, but it gave only renewed life to
the agitation before the country. There
was no effort TO revive the bill in the
senate during the second session of the
sixteenth congress, and tariff legislation
in the seventeenth congress got no fur
Their than a desultory consideration in
the house in the committee of the whole.
But in the meantime the census of 1920
had been taken. 1t brought about "a re-
appointment that considerably enhanced
the protection strength in the house, and
the high tariff people looked forward
with high hopes to the eighteenth con-
gress.
The proceedings of congress in enact
ing the tariff law of 1924 was but the
Gettysburg of the campaign that result
ed in the recrudescence of the protection
sentiment of the country. President Mon
roe had referred to the matter in such
way in his messages to congress that
both sides have since been able to de-
rive comfort from his words. But his at
titude was no more uncertain than that
of others. Madison once made state
ment with reference to protection which
the friends of the policy asserted was in
it's favor. The enemies of protection
construed it as being against the policy.
The effect of his utterance was to say
that he could not be written down as
free trader, but it did not go far enough
to justify his being called protection
list.
An effort was made to have Incorporate
ed in the act of 1924 a provision which
would put an end to the practice of ex-
tending credit to the merchant importers
TO cover the import duties until such time
as they disposed of the goods and got
the money for them. This had been the
practice from the beginning, and 1t was
urged that the merchant did not pay the
duty, but simply collected it from the
consumer. This proposition was urged
| with much force, but congress never eff
fectively cut off the credit system until
1872 1t is true that it had enacted law
to stop it in 1882, but that law was more
honored in it's breach than in its OBJ
! servance.
The debates on the tariff bill shed
much light on conditions obtaining at
home and abroad at that time There
was no market for American foodstuffs
abroad The protectionists asserted that
this was due to the low tariff. But at
| that very time England had a law on
her statute books providing that no wheat
4 should be imported from the United
States so long as the price of wheat was
under ten shillings (two and half dol