The Washington herald., 1909-03-18
By FREDERIC ]. HASKTN.

No great policy OF any government ever
had more splendid argumentative foun-
dation than was laid for the protection
policy by Alexander Hamilton. His Re
port on Manufactures" prepared while he
was Secretary OF the Treasury, Is the
granary from which all protection speak
ers and writer's have secured their funda-
mental arguments Although each OF
these speakers and writer's has striven 10
add some new thought to the subject. or
TO restate an old one in a more telling
way, those students who consider II with
the impartial calm of the historian.
rather than the battle-fiush bias OF the
politician. regard the Hamilton report as
covering every detail Of the fundamentals
OF the doctrine OF protection.
How this report came TO be written is
an interesting story. Congress was not
satisfied with the condition Of manufac-
tEres in the nation, and in January. 1890
passed resolution calling upon the Sec
retary Of the Treasury FOR a detailed
statement concerning them, together with
suggestions for their stimulation With
a thoroughness never surpassed and sell
dom equaled. Hamilton proceeded to col
iect all available data. He spent nearly
two years in the preparation OF the state
ment. When he submitted it 10 Congress
ne gave 10 the world the bible OF prOtec-
ton Friend and Zoe OF that doctrine
alike admit that Hamilton stated the case
IN the most favorable light possible.
The plan OF his report is very simple.
First. he states the case against protec-
ton as clearly and concisely as any one
could. Then he turns the guns Of his
argument upon the structure thus reared
and RACES IL 10 the complete satisfaction
Of all prOtectiOnistS- Then he proceeds
TO rear his own edifce OF protection in
its stead, and he uses every available
piece OF fact-timber TO the best advan-
tage. He gets right down to the very
fundamentals And with remarkable fideI-
ity the protectionists ever since have
stuck to the bible he gave them or
course, they have some heretics who
refuse TO accept his statement that the
tariff duty is one OF the ingredients which
enters into the cost of foreign goods 10
the consumer. but other than that every
protecuouist is orthodox. as measured by
the Report on Manufactures
But the advocates OF a revenue tariff
do not cOnstrue the Hamilton report as
il is row interpreted by their opponents.
In the first place. they assert that fits
arguments are well made, but not well
taken. They say that even Hamilton
never had any visions of protection be-
ing carried as Tar as it has been. Like
wise they insist that IT did not repre-
sent the views OF the nation DR.. Henry l
g Adams saws that II fails 10 prove that
either Hamilton OF Congress were the
hgh protecuonlSts they are represented /
as being.
At the beginning OF the second session
OF the First Congress. Hamilton. as Sec /
retary OF the Treasury. submitted his
estimates for the year. These called for
nearly four times as much money for /
interest as was required for the main |
tenance Of the government. The esti- |
mates called for $6o0.O00 for expenses and
$4,000 for meeting the interest on the
domestic and foreign debt Hamilton
recommended an internal revenue tax
on spirits. liquors. wines, &C. in order
10 swell the revenue. But Congress was !
not willing. and this proposition was over
whelmingy defeated. Then the bin 10 in
crease the tariff rates was taken I'D. de-
bated. passed. and signed by the Presf- I
dent. all within fifty days. Considering
the fact that parliamentary procedure
was clumsy and Unwieldy in those davs. (
this is almost record time for the passage
Of tariff law
Even this measure proved 10 he =
makeshift- Just as the failure Of the
Supreme Court TO uphold the income tax
law IS iield TO have been responsible for
the collapse OF the Wilson tariff. 80 the
tf to
internal revenue tax 20 accompanv tbs i
tarin act OF 1870 brought about a deficit
in the revenues, and a third session ~
the First Congress came 10 the rescue
with an internal revenue tax on spirits
Again in 1872 the government needed 4
moro money TO defend the frontiers the /
expenditures exceeding the revenues bv 1
more than 100000. Congress once mora 1
called on Secretary Hamilton for a plan 1
Dy Whlcn 10 raise more money. During 4
the debate on the resolution one MEM
Der said he opposed the manner Of call
Ing on Cabinet officers for information.
that not even the English Parliament
was so obseQuiOus 20 ministers as some
gentlemen are 70 our Secretaries" But
the Secretary reported. estimating that
the net amount necessary TO be raised !
would be $526,000 and that It could be
secured BY increasing the tariff rate
--4o 'eA1 NeAA I ASu WLleu the ulaLL6r came /
up for action. There was new tariff |
legislation again in 1884 Between that /
time and lS16 there were twenty-four
changes in the tariff In 1875 the duties
on sugar and tea were sinplified. In /
liS an addition was made 10 the duty
upon sugar mOlasses, 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 y to 20 cents and
corresponding Increases were authorized
on salted goods This salt tax was a
bitter grievance to the people of the
back country" as the remote sections
were then known. This duty was ex-
pected to end in $500, but It was extended
for ten years. though finally repealed in
1907. The year brought new tariff leSis-
lation. the increases TO be applied TO
the public debt.
In 1904 our trouble with the Barbary
powers made new revenues necessary,
and the ad valOrem rates were increased
212 per cent. There were other changes,
and in 1905 old copper. saItpeter, and sui
phUr were added 10 the free list be-
cause Of the desire Of the government
TO provide itself with the munitions OF
war AZ the beginning Of the war Of 1872
all duties were doubled, and this rate
was maintained until the general act Of
1916 became effective.