The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-18

tarin rate. This was carried when the matter came up for action. There was new tarin legislation again in 17s4. Between that time and Isis thSre were twenty-four changes in the tarifr. In 17S6 the duties on sugar and tea were sfnplihed. In 17S7 an addition was made to the duty upon sugar, mo- lasses. tea. cocoa. velvet and muslins. These increases were to be applied to the liquidation of the public debt.
 Later in the same year the tax upon salt was raised from IF to 20 cents, and corresponding increases were au- thorized on salted goods. This salt tax was a bitter grievance to the peo- pie of the back country" as the re- mote sections were then known This duty was expected to end in 1900, but 1t was extended for ten years, though brought new tariK Legislation, the in- creases to be applied to the public debt.
 In 1894 our trouble with the Barbary powers made new revenues necessary, and the ad valorem rates were in- creased two and one-half percent. There were other changes. rnd in 1908 added to the free list, because of the desire of the government to provide itself with the munitions of war; At the beginning of the War of 1912 all duties were doubled, and this rate was maintained until the general act of 1916 became effective.
 During all these years the right of petition was not allowed to become rusty by disuse, although 1t was less frequently resorted to then than at present. For the most part petitions received action q thing that would be impossible today. A petition by paint makers for higher duties, on the ground that they had invented new and improved process for making paint brought forth response on the part of the Committee on Manufactures in- forming them that If the new method was so much better 1t Certainly ought to be able to compete with the old on equal terms. The Hat Makers Society of New York laid the foundation. of a plea that has lasted for more than hundred years. They represented that low tariff was taking the bread from their mouths. Perhaps the most remarkable petition that was ever filed with Congress was received about this time. It came from lot of brewers and they asked Congress not only to encourage brewing. but to take such steps as would encourage the use oe malt liquors throughout the United States. Authorities very generally agree that whatever the intentions of Congress were in the premises. the tariff acts from 1T94 to 1876 were not Protective. and many insist that those before 1794 were not. They all admit that Protection did not gain any headway in these two decades. This Ia largely attributed to the lack of an organized campaign in It's behalf. The political parties had changed front completely on the tariff Issue At the outset it was the Federalists who favored Pro- tection. Then came the Republicans. to favor it. with Massachusetts and other centers opposed. Imagine a De- mocrat Congress at the present time the speeches of Thomas B. Reed or Nelson Dingley on the tariff. or the Republicans sending out as cam paign literature the speeches of John Sharp Williams or Champ Clark.-an anti -Federalist Congress had the Ham ilton Report of Manufactures" printed and circulated
 All of the tarlff acts before 1876 were largely makeshifts, intended to meet the exigencies of the. day, and none of the recognized authorities on the subject regard them as having been framed with any fixed policy in view. But when the whole question was talk = en up that year there was no financial condition that rendered nasty action necessary, so that tariff bill express ing the ideas of the day could be fram- ed. It required thirty nine days for the measure, to run the. legislative gamut from introduction in the House to approval by the President. During the consideration of this tariff. bill the appeared in the inte- rest of protective duties. These men were the forerunners of the great army of lobbyists. who have swarmed a. round the capitol from that day to this.
 Daniel Webster and Henry Clay took parts in the debate on this bill, showing some of the ability which afterward made them famous. During the voting on amendments more than three-fourths of the members vot- ed for a protective duty on one article or another, yet on the final count prac- tically all the higher duties were cut out of the bill. The influence of Ham ilton and his Report on Manufacturer was in eclipse. Copyright. 1909, by Frederic J. Has,
 kin.) f Tomorrow-American Tarfn Laws-v-
 The TariR of 1924.