The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-26
AMERICAN TARIFF LAWS
 XIY..Morrison,s Horizontal BM
By Frederic J. Haskin.


 This history of the tarinf bill intro- duced in the House of Representatives by William R. Morrison, of Illinois. in 1884. and adopted by the Democrats as Q party measure constitutes one of the most remarkable episodes in American tarin legislation. The Democrats con- trolled the House by more than seven- ty majority-one of the largest work ing margins any party has ever had in that body. The minority was more helpless through the compelling force of numbers than the minority now Is through the exercise of the power of the Reed rules. Yet. even with such tremendous parliamentary advantage as this. the Democrats were unable to pass the Morrison horizontal bill." and were forced to see 1t die an ignomin- ious death through a stricken-out en- acting clause. It was all because they allowed party caucus to become par ty conference. and were therefore un- able to apply the party whip to their own protectionist members.
 The Morrill, tariff law of 1861 was looked upon at the time as very sat- isfactory protection measure. While It's rates we're not excessive they were regarded as anording sufficient pro- lection to the struggling infant indus tries. Then came the higher civil war tariffs. After that followed the re- duction period, but in 1884 the rates had not got down to the percentages Of the Morrill, tariff. At the same time the Treasury was piling up surplus, and revenues had to be cut somewhere The protectionists wanted to cut the internal revenue taxes rather than the customs taxes. ThfB led to the wide spread assertion that they were for free whiskey and free tobacco.
 It was at this juncture that Morrison came along with his 'horizontal' bill. He thought to command support for it by providing that no duty should De made lower under its operation than those which obtained in the Morrill, tarir. He argued that 1t was meas ure providing duties confessedly high CT than those of the Morrill, tariff. and that the infant industry ought not to need more care after twenty twenty three years than 1t needed at the be- ginning of that period. But he reck- oned without his host His bill was charged with being free trade meas ure. Under that charge 1t was dog with a bad name. and Democratic pro tectionists themselves joined the Re- publicans in kicking 1t. What was re- garded as satisfactory protection In 1881 was not enough protection in 1854
 The Ways and Means Committee had been ITduFeQ dlOHs LhSV ea@NO tA~NS on the Democratic side: unanimous majority report was therefore brought Into the House. Its principal provision was that all duties should be reduced 20 per cent, except that no duty was to so below the rates of the Morrill, tariff Salt, coal and lumber were added to the free list. Four days after the bill was favorably reported. MT. Morrison moved that the House go into commit n% ha xx,hn1 tn consider If. TO ms great surprise that motion came within an ace of being lost, It had only two votes to spare out of a total. or 27S cast With such a narrow margin the reformeps set out to consider the bill in dead earnest The best argument the free traders turned up was the one tending to show that the prevailing tariff rates were higher than the whole cost of the labor entering Into the fln- ished product. They quoted government statistics to show that the gross value of all the products of all manufactur- ing industries amounted to $5.369.00o.- 900 and that the wages paid there for amounted to $9&7 100000. From this they reasoned that the cost of the Ia bor aged in turning out this pro duct amounted to. 17.7 per cent of tlAe products value. while, the tariff rate on the product was 40 per cent. They pointed out. too, that protection in 17s2 amounted to an average duty of II per cent, while after a hundred years there had to be 40 per cent given.
 The protectionists. on the other hand. pointed to the growth of the country, the development of its indus tries, the elevation of its people--and claimed all these to be the direct re- suits of protection. They submitted that the proof of the pudding was in the eating. and that settled 1t to their minds. Thus debate dragged along for some three weeks.
 Then came tho Democratic caucus. It was expected that each participant should be pledged to carry out its will or be read out of the party. But in a moment of weakness a vote was al- lowed to pass which made 1t con- ference instead of a caucus. A resolu- tion was put through allowing each man to vote his sentiments when the bill was put on it's passage. The free trade wing was satisfied that they could rally enough votes to put the bill through the House without heroic ap- plication of the party lash. which would be required to force Into line such wheel horses of protection as Sam Randall.
 AS the. day for a vote on the ,pend- ing bill drew near the free trade people were in high spirits. and the protec> tionists were cast down. But when the morning of May arrived the tide had turned. The protectionists who had been in the valley of despair were now on the high hills of citation. and the free traders had changed places with them. All Washington recognized that one of the closest fights in the history of Congress was to be settled that day, and the population turned out en masse to witness the spectacle John c. Carlisle was the Speaker. The bill was promptly taken up to be con- sidered by paragraphs. At this junct- ure, Representative Converse of Ohio pressed forward. gained the recogni- ton of the chair. and moved to strike out the enacting clause. This was the parliamentary motion for beheading the bill forthwith. The motion was put, and the Speaker announced that the ayes seemed to have 1t. The ayes any nays were then ordered.
 At this tuncture. Speaker Carlisle betrayed a remarkable nervousness for so seasoned a legislator. He should have announced that the clerk would call the roll. Instead. he told the ayes to rise and remain standing until counted. It was several moments be fore he recovered his usual euuiIibrt- um. But he was not the only one who betrayed nervousness. Even the yeter- an Randall. who had been Speaker of three Houses, and legislator for a gen eration, trembled like a leaf, as he de- clared to the House the necessity that required him to break company with the men with whom he had labored so long. He carried forty-one Democrats with him in voting to kill the measure.
 He and his friends were roundly de- nounced for their action, the Democrat ic press sought to read them out of the party. and everything was done to