« PreviousContinue »
tection-should be the last section of the Union to reject this righteous measure. With her millions invested in manufactures, protected by the tax of from 50 to more than 100 per cent., it would be the height of political ingratitude for any statesmen from that section, whether Democrat or Republican, to act otherwise than to urge a speedy ratification of this amendment.
RICHMOND P. HOBSON (Ala.].-I believe that this measure is a wise movement in the direction of substituting direct taxation for indirect taxation. A prime advantage of the direct method is that the people know when they are being taxed. Today I am sure that the great masses of the American people have not the slightest idea how many times in the day they are being taxed for all the comforts, conveniences, and necessities of life. If the people were fully informed they would not submit to such tariff schedules as have been in effect for many years and such as are now carried by the present bill.
Another prime advantage of a direct tax is that it enables a people to know how much they are being taxed, and only when they have such knowledge can they prevent abuse of the taxing power.
To-day I do not believe our people have the slightest idea of the amount of taxation that is levied upon them. One, 2, 3 per cent. is considered a sore burden, yet to-day our people are taxed 10, 20, even 30 per cent., and do not know it.
Still a third prime advantage of a direct tax is that we know where the tax goes. In the present juncture the bulk of the taxation of the American people does not go to the Government of the American people. I will illustrate: There are about 200,000 tons of pig iron imported into the United States in a year. The indirect tariff tax causes the Government to get the impost duty from 200,000 tons. The country consumes about 25,000,000 tons, the price of all of which is raised to the extent of the tariff. The net result is that the pig-iron tariff gives the tax on 200,000 tons to the Government and the tax on 24,800,000 tons to certain favored individuals, practically giving over to individuals the sovereign right of taxation that can only reside justly in the Government itself. When the people are taxed, they ought to know who gets the tax, and they would know under a system of direct taxation.
A fourth prime advantage of direct taxation is that it would be more adjustable to the legitimate needs of the Government, and it would tend to a more economical and efficient administration of the Government.
Robert L. Henry [Tex.] offered an amendment to the joint resolution to provide that the proposed constitutional amendment be submitted to the conventions of the States instead of the legislatures. The Speaker [Joseph G. Cannon] ruled the amendment out of order as violating the agreement between the party leaders of the House that debate be limited and a vote be reached at a specified time. This ruling was sustained by the House.
The bill then (on July 12, 1909) passed by a vote of 318 to 14. Having received a two-thirds majority in both Chambers it became effective without the signature of the President.
The constitutional amendment (Article XVI) was declared ratified by more than the necessary three-fourths of the States on February 25, 1913.
RECIPROCITY WITH CANADA
The Treaty of 1854; It Provides for Free Trade with Canada on Natural
Products It Is Repealed by Congress in 1866; Debate in the House, in Favor of Repeal, Justin S. Morrill (Vt.], Frederick A. Pike (Me.]; opposed, Elijah Ward [N. Y.]—Reciprocity Provisions Are Embodied in various Tariff Bills-President William H. Taft Negotiates a Reciprocity Treaty in 1911--Samuel W. McCall (Mass.) Introduces in the House from the Committee on Ways and Means a Bill “To Promote Reciprocal Trade Relations with the Dominion of Canada'Report of the Minority of the Committee-Robert F. Broussard [La.] Presents Separate Report in Opposition to the Bill-Debate on the Bill: in Favor, Ebenezer J. Hill [Conn.), Oscar W. Underwood [Ala.], Champ Clark (Mo.), Mr. McCall, Isaac R. Sherwood [0.]; Opposed, Eben W. Martin (S. D.), George W. Norris [Neb.), J. Hampton Moore (Pa.), George W. Prince [Ill.), Andrew J. Volstead [Minn.], John Dalzell [Pa.), Gen. J. Warren Keifer (0.1–Bill Is Amended and Passed by House-It Fails to Come to a Vote in the Senate—The President Calls a Special Session of Congress-Mr. Underwood Reintroduces the Bill in the House and also a “Farmer's Free List Bill’! — Debate on the General Reciprocity Measure: in Favor, Paul Howland (0.), Mr. Hill, Mr. McCall, Mr. Underwood; Opposed, Asher C. Hinds (Me.), Joseph W. Fordney (Mich.), Mr. Dalzell--Bill Is Passed by House-It Is Passed by Senate and Approved by the President-"Farmer's Free List Bill ” Is Passed by House and Senate--It Is Vetoed by the PresidentHouse Sustains Veto—Treaty for Reciprocity Is Rejected by CanadaCanadian Debate on Reciprocity: in Favor, W. S. Fielding, Ralph Smith, Sydney Fisher: Opposed, Z. A. Lash, T. Chase Casgrain, Prof. Stephen Leacock, Clifford Sifton.
S early as 1848 a bill proposing reciprocity with
Canada passed the House of Representatives. It
was defeated in the Senate, however, because of the uncertainty then prevailing as to Canada's attitude toward American shipping on the St. Lawrence.
In 1853 Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to arrange reciprocity by means of a treaty. On June 5 of the following year a treaty was signed by representatives of the two governments, and was subse
quently validated by the national legislatures. It became a law by the signature of President Franklin Pierce on August 5.
This treaty provided for free interchange of natural products, settled the question of fisheries, and fixed the rights of navigation on the St. Lawrence.
In May, 1864, a joint resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives from the Committee on Commerce, authorizing President Lincoln to give notice for terminating the treaty, and negotiating a new one “based on the true principles of reciprocity.”
Justin S. Morrill (Vt.] moved as an amendment to the bill that the Government simply give notice of the termination of the treaty.
Frederick A. Pike [Me.] supported the amendment. He was opposed to the renewal of the treaty on any terms. He said the old treaty operated adversely to our fishing interests, brought the balance of trade in favor of Canada, and caused a serious loss of revenue. He said:
Of course, if the treaty has failed in the respects I have mentioned, it must be regarded as a business failure. If our total exports have lessened since it went into operation, and particularly if our export of manufactured articles has diminished, and if in the meantime our commerce has not been benefited by additional employment, if the large fishing interest is anxious to put an end to this arrangement because of the detriment it receives from it, and if the revenue suffers greatly by its continuance, then I say as a commercial arrangement it has not answered the expectations which gave it existence, and it should be abrogated.
Elijah Ward [N. Y.] spoke in favor of a continuation of the treaty. He quoted statistics to show that, during the operation of the treaty, the excess of our exports to the Canadian provinces ($171,628,779) over imports therefrom ($144,183,096) was $26,445,683.
He continued :
It is argued that the treaty has deprived us of revenue. During the last year the imports and exports between the United States and Canada of articles free under the treaty were nearly equal. If we levy duties on their productions they may do the same on ours. This principle is a two-edged sword. Or they may admit our products free of duty as they did before the treaty, and thus be the carriers of a considerable portion of our produce as well as of their own. When a revenue was paid to our Government on Canadian productions the provincial railroads and means of communication were imperfect and its population was comparatively scanty. By renewing the duties we shall drive away the trade and render our people less able to pay taxes. The utmost amount of revenue the Government can derive from duties on colonial productions is inconsiderable compared with the loss of commerce we shall sustain, and the consequent loss of employment to the laborer and profit to the merchant or capitalist.
By a vote of 77 yeas to 72 nays the bill was postponed until the next session.
During the next session Congress repealed the existing treaty, the House voting against it on December 13, 1863, by a vote of 85 yeas to 57 nays, and the Senate voting against it on January 12, 1865, by 33 yeas to 8 nays. The treaty expired during 1866.
Following the repeal of the treaty no legislation on the question of reciprocity with Canada was enacted until 1890, when, as we have seen in the debate on the McKinley tariff bill, certain provisions for reciprocity on a limited number of articles were adopted. Similar provisions were incorporated in the Dingley bill (1897) and the Payne-Aldrich bill (1909).
President William H. Taft in his second annual message, December 6, 1910, referred to the question of reciprocity with Canada as follows:
The policy of broader and closer trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, which was initiated in the adjustment of the maximum and minimum provisions of the tariff act of August, 1909, has proved mutually beneficial. It justifies further efforts for the readjustment of the commercial relations of the two countries so that their commerce may follow the channels natural to contiguous countries and be commensurate with the steady expansion of trade and industry on both sides