me to say to both sides of the House that except in time of war these internal-revenue taxes, excise and stamp duties are in my judgment in principle anti-republican, anti-democratic, and anti-American. They are in opposition to the general principles or policy of this Government as taught by the fathers of the Republic.

The best way to raise revenue is by duties on imports. They bear less heavily on the taxpayers, and as legislators that is what we should look to. In levying duties on imports you can at the same time make foreign producers pay for the use of your markets, and in that way incidentally and properly give aid and protection to American industry. It is not true, as a general proposition, that the consumer pays all the duty imposed upon commodities brought from other countries. This is a question that I cannot now argue. In most instances where the duties are judiciously laid they are borne partly by the importer and partly by the consumer.

To allow Congress thus to raise revenue by duties upon imports was one of the main objects in establishing the Federal Constitution of 1787. This system of internal-revenue taxation by excise and stamp duties was not favored by the fathers of the Republic in times of peace. I speak plainly, and say that it was looked upon then as not only of British origin, but there was always the odium of British Toryism attached to it in the American mind. There was never any legislation more abhorrent to the people of this country, even in their colonial condition, than what was known as the infamous stamp act.

In time of war, when foreign trade is interrupted, this country has been compelled to resort to this method of raising revenue. It was thus resorted to in the Revolutionary War by the States. In the war of 1812, after the adoption of the present Constitution, it was again resorted to of necessity. But it was not adhered to one moment longer than the necessity existed. The system was adopted in the administration of the elder Adams, when war was expected with France; but nothing tended more to excite popular opposition to his administration than this system of taxation, except the alien and sedition acts. One of the first acts of Mr. Jefferson's administration was to wipe them from the statute book. The present system was adopted during the late lamentable war between the States. We do not now require its continuance.

On June 24 George M. Robeson [N. J.] supported abolition of the bank taxes,

Mr. Chairman, we hear a great deal from the other side to the effect that all taxes upon the business of the country are paid by the consumer. As a general proposition it is true; but one other thing is also true: all taxes on the business of a bank are paid by the borrower. The consumer of an article meets the manufacturer and vendor upon equal terms; he comes offering his money for the article he needs. The borrower comes asking favors of the man or institution who is to lend him money, and he is obliged to assume the expense imposed by the Government on the money he borrows. All the expenses that you put upon the machinery of banking, therefore, come out of the debtor and borrower class; they are direct taxes upon the business of the country, and upon the resources and credit of the men who carry on the business and employ the labor of the country.

Roger Q. Mills [Tex.] declared that the purpose of the bill was to prevent the payment of the public debt and so fasten the national banking system on the country, and to serve as a plausible excuse for continuing high tariffs.

Mr. Chairman, is it not a little singular that this thing was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania? Is it not a little strange that the first gun in favor of the repeal of internal taxes came from the gentleman from Pennsylvania on that side [Mr. Kelley], and from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Samuel J. Randall] on this side of the House; the speech of one gentleman being delivered in the tariff convention of New York City, and the speech of the other delivered to the national bankers and the tariff men of New York City?

MR. RANDALL.-My speech was delivered before a Democratic meeting—

MR. MILLS.-I know what sort of Democrats they were. MR. RANDALL.-And a meeting that gave response by applause.

MR. MILLS.-Yes; and it was a meeting of national bankers and high-tariff men; heretics in the Democratic party, and who have always been regarded as heretics from its very foundation.

Why is it that this thing comes from Pennsylvania? The great cry for reform in taxation comes from Pennsylvania, and the protectionists at that. You do not hear anybody in Texas or in Missouri or in Iowa or through the Western country demanding the repeal of the taxation on banks. You do not hear any great complaint from the people about the money that

comes into the treasury being superabundant and about there being no necessity for it.

What man of common sense ever would think of giving away his revenues when he had his debts, bearing interest, due, and demanding payment? But the Congress of the United States is being boldly and insolently asked to-day to throw away the treasures of the people of the United States for the sole purpose of gratifying the godless greed of these monopolists; nothing else in the world. Who is to be benefited by giving away these $17,000,000 that are now reecived from the coffers of the banks? How many of your people in the West and South will be benefited by that?

The bill passed the House on June 27 by a vote of 128 to 80. It was debated at great length in the Senate, but did not come to a vote during this session.

During the next session of Congress (December, 1882March, 1883) the bill was again extensively discussed in the Senate. It was finally passed with amendments on February 20, 1883. The House refusing to accept the amendments, a conference was held. The report of this was adopted by both chambers on March 2. President Arthur approved the bill on March 3, 1883.

CHAPTER IX

THE TARIFF OF 1870

Gen. Robert C. Schenck [O.] Introduces in the House a Bill "To Amend Existing Laws Relating to the Duty on Imports"-Debate: Protectionists, William D. Kelley [Pa.], Horace Maynard [Tenn.], Gen. Schenck; Anti-Protectionists, James Brooks [N. Y.], William B. Allison [Ia.], Samuel S. Marshall [Ia.], James J. Winans [O.], Gen. James A. Garfield [O.]-Bill Is Passed-Subsequent Acts of Congress Providing for Further Reduction-Debate in the House [1872] Between Samuel Shellabarger [O.], Protectionist, and Job E. Stevenson [O.],

Anti-Protectionist.

F

ROM 1857 down to the close of the Civil War the tariff question was agitated only when urgent calls for money for the prosecution of the war came up. In 1861 a bill introduced by Justin S. Morrill [Vt.] was passed, raising the tariff of 1857 one-third. This tariff remained in force only a few months. During the following years of the war the need of additional revenue caused measure after measure, revising the tariff upward, to be adopted, and it was inevitable that some protective duties should creep in.

On February 1, 1870, Robert C. Schenck [0.] introduced in the House of Representatives a bill "to amend existing laws relating to the duty on imports." It was discussed at great length throughout the session, and its provisions were finally incorporated in a bill to reduce internal revenue. The new measure became a law on July 14, 1870. Most of the protective features of the existing tariff were retained, though about 130 articles were added to the free list, and the duties on tea, coffee, sugar, spices, and pig-iron were reduced. The real burden of the war tariff was hardly lightened, as the high duties on the necessaries of life still remained.

In the debate in the House on the tariff bill leading

speakers in favor of the principle of protection were: William D. Kelley [Pa.], Horace Maynard [Tenn.], and General Schenck. Among the important anti-protectionists were: James Brooks [N. Y.], William B. Allison [Ia.], Samuel S. Marshall [Ia.], James J. Winans, [O.], and James A. Garfield [O.].

THE SCHENCK BILL

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 3-APRIL 1, 1870

MR. BROOKS.-I do not doubt that every gentleman who now listens to the sound of my voice is abstractly for free trade, if free trade could be realized. It is the nature of man to desire the greatest freedom of intercourse, not only with his own countrymen, but with all mankind. God, who has given man dominion over fish and fowl and all living creatures in the earth, instituted no geographical or political boundaries, and He doubtless intended all to commune together as brethren in the freest intercourse and trade. He has given us different climes for different productions, and different races of men, all wonderfully fitted for their varied work of production, and all created profitably to interchange that production; whether from the sea or the soil, whether from the plow, the loom, the forge, or the anvil; whether the work of the muscle or the brain. He has planted us all upon the earth and commanded us to love one another, and not to destroy each other, neither by the sword nor the cannon, nor by what is as fatal to human happiness, by conflicting, damaging, or destructive tariffs that violate all his commands. While, and when, we have struck off the manacles of chattel slavery from 4,000,000 of men, and poured out our blood like water therefor, we have been all that while as ingloriously riveting the chains of monopoly slavery upon 36,000,000 other men in the tyrannical restraints we have imposed upon their personal liberty in trade, commerce, and intercourse; and thus what we gained in the world's estimation by the one great act we lose in the greater crime. Man's audacity, however, on the tower of Babel, inflicted upon him a confusion of languages and of tongues, and hence divided men into States or kingdoms, and with them, as punishments, have come tariffs, or supposed necessities for tariffs to support conflicting governments. In the conflict of these tariffs it has been a struggle among nations to lay countervailing duties, the