Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1909-04-09
AMERICAN TARIFF LAWS
ACT OF 1882 AND MULTIPLICATION
BY FREDERIC j. HASKIN.

ate. resulting in the rejection of both
propositions.
On the whole, the senate amended the
bill upwards, much to the satisfaction
of the protectionists and it was finally
passed by a two to one vote. But when
the bill went to conference it struck a
parliamentary snag of an unexpected ma
ture, which served to deprive the pro-
tectionists of much of the fruits of their
victory in the senate. The president pro
tempore of the senate, Mr.. Tazewell, of
Virginia, appointed as the senate con-
ferees on the disagreeing votes of the two
houses, Senators Wilkins, Dickerson and
Hayne. The first two had voted con-
sistently with the protectionists. and it
was expected they would do the same
in conference. But wilkins was a
Pennsylvania, and was willing to sacri-
flee the wooden duties in order that the
iron and steel duties might go through.
Dtckerson gave but feeble support to the
senate amendments, and Hayne, being
opposed to them from the beginning,
took his first opportunity to surrender
the senate breas.works to the house
enemy. The bill was finally approved. af-
ter having had wiped out of it nearly
everything that the senate put in.
The tariff of 1882 dealt a severe blow
had expected ample protection, but in
asking for bread they got a stone. Louis
lana sugar had suffered from the act OF
1873 and the sugar growers expected to
nave the wrongs of that year righted by
the pending measure. But IL they got
a blow in the face in 1928 they got a
worse one in 1882, for the duty on sugar
was driven lower than ever before.
Pennsylvania, however, Jared we'll The
N -fo ..otxy
touched. The act of 1892 amounted to
nothing more than an important lower
ing OF the tariff. 1t mitigated the con-
ditions which South Carolina felt had
warranted notification proceedings. but
1t did not do away with protection.
With this in mind South Carolina pro-
ceeded to pass her notification acts Then
Andrew Jackson threatened to do several
and sundry things of serious import if
notification were persisted in, but at the
same time gave assurances to South Caro-
lima that he was willing to do what was
just and right. John G. Calhoun resigned
from the vice presidency in order to get
a voice in the very body over which he
was presiding, and Hayne left the senate
In order to become governor of his state.
Acting In thorough accord, they made the
best possible showing for their cause
Henry Clay was up in arms against South
Carolina. That state was so angered by
the action of congress that it threw its
electoral vote away in 1888 rather than
permit 1t to be cast for Jackson. The next
session of congress met, and everywhere
there was an attitude of Cancellation
This attitude was met in like spirit by
South Carolina, and the incident was
soon closed.
South Carolina had lost, so far as being
able to maintain her doctrine was con-
cerned. But If her purpose was to bring
about free trade she gained more by los
ing the principle than she would have
gained by maintaining it. Congress took
the view that If free trade was the price
to pay for unity, harmony and peace, it
was a price that ought to be paid. And
for the next quarter of a century the
country seemed as definitely pledged to
free trade as 1t was formerly committed
to protection.
The conciliatory feeling took express
sion in the tariff of the following year On
that measure we see Calhoun, the very
apostle of free trade, and Clay, the very
high priest of protection, standing shout
der TO shoulder, fighting for a common
cause. With that fight won the doctrine
OF notification pasted into inocuous desue-
tude, and was relegated to the scrap heap
of useless issues. With the passing of the
act of 1892 protection lost its grip on the
country, and for a long time remained
political issue of only second magnitude.
Slavery was rapidly succeeding it as the
bone of contention in congress and before
the country, and not until that issue was
finally determined In the court of war
was protection again the all-compelling
question of the day. 1t is true that it re-
vived little in 1912, but only for a few
years Copyright. 1909, by Frederic ].
Haskin.)