occupied a position between two extremes of opinion. I have long believed, and I still believe, that the worst evil which has afflicted the interests of American artisans and manufacturers Democratic Workman-"STOP, GENERAL; WRITE NO MORE ABOUT FREE TRADE; YOU ARE From the collection of the New York Public Library has been the tendency to extremes in our tariff legislation. Our history for the last fifty years has been a repetition of the same mistake. One party comes into power, and, believing that a protective tariff is a good thing, establishes a fair rate of duty. Not content with that, they say: "This works well, let us have more of it." And they raise the rates still higher, and perhaps go beyond the limits of national interest. Every additional step in that direction increases the opposition and threatens the stability of the whole system. When the policy of increase is pushed beyond a certain point, the popular reaction sets in; the opposite party gets into power and cuts down the high rates. Not content with reducing the rates that are unreasonable, they attack and destroy the whole protective system. Then follows a deficit in the treasury, the destruction of manufacturing interest, until the reaction again sets in, the free-traders are overthrown, and a protective system is again established. In not less than four distinct periods during the last fifty years has this sort of revolution taken place in our industrial system. Our great national industries have thus been tossed up and down between two extremes of opinion. During my term of service in this House I have resisted the effort to increase the rates of duty whenever I thought an increase would be dangerous to the stability of our manufacturing interests; and, by doing so, I have sometimes been thought unfriendly to the policy of protecting American industry. When the necessity of the revenues and the safety of our manufactures warranted, I have favored a reduction of rates; and these reductions have aided to preserve the stability of the system. The bill failed to come to a vote during this session of Congress. In the presidential campaign of 1880 Gen. Winfield S. Hancock, the Democratic candidate, tried unsuccessfully to eliminate the tariff as a major issue, writing a letter in which he declared that "the tariff is a local issue." A great deal was made of this statement by the Republicans during the campaign. CHAPTER XI A TARIFF COMMISSION [ACT OF 1882] John A. Kasson [Ia.] Introduces in the House a Bill to Create a Tariff Commission-Debate: Speakers of Varying Views, Mr. Kasson, Edward K. Valentine [Neb.], George D. Tillman [S. C.], George D. Robinson [Mass.], John G. Carlisle [Ky.], Roswell G. Horr [Mich.], William D. Kelley [Pa.], Abram S. Hewitt [N. Y.], William McKinley [0.], James A. McKenzie [Ky.], Samuel S. Cox [N. Y.], John R. Tucker [Va.], Richard W. Townsend [Ill.], William R. Morrison [Ill.], Samuel J. Randall [Pa.]-Bill Is Passed by Both Houses and Is Approved by the President-House Frames Bill from the Report of the Commission, but Drops It for an Internal Revenue Bill-Mr. Morrison Reports "Horizontal Reduction" Bill in 1884 to the House from Committee on Ways and Means-Bill Is Defeated-The Tariff as an Issue in the Presidential Campaign of 1884. N January 9, 1882, John A. Kasson [Ia.] introduced in the House a bill to appoint a commission to investigate the tariff and internal revenue. It was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. On February 8 he reported a bill to this effect from the majority of the Committee. It came up for discussion in the Committee of the Whole on March 7. TARIFF COMMISSION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 7-MAY 5, 1882 Edward K. Valentine [Neb.] raised the point of order that the bill, not being a revenue one, could, by the rules, have no precedence over others on the calendar. In this he was supported by other Representatives, among them George D. Tillman [S. C.], who said: Mr. Speaker, instead of this being a bill to raise revenue I think it is a bill to spend revenue, yet not being a "general ap propriation" bill it is not a privileged bill. Instead of proposing to raise funds for the Government it proposes, as I understand, to pay nine gentlemen ten dollars a day and expenses. Another view is that instead of being a bill to raise revenue it is simply a bill to raise a commission to make suggestions to this body. It seems to me analogous to a resolution calling on one of the departments for its opinion upon certain subjects, and is therefore entitled to no precedence over other bills. The Chairman (George D. Robinson [Mass.]) sustained the point of order. In his statement of the reason for his decision he incidentally gave a summary of the provisions of the bill. The Chair finds on inspection of the bill, in the first instance, that it provides for a commission called the "tariff commission"; that in the second section it gives the number of such commissioners, provides for their salaries, and the payment of such officers and assistants as may be provided. In the third section the duty of such commission is prescribed. It is to take into consideration and thoroughly investigate all the various questions relating to the agricultural, commercial, mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial interests of the United States so far as the same may be necessary to the establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the existing tariff; and for the purpose of fully examining the matter which may come before it such commission in the prosecution of its inquiries is empowered to visit such different portions and sections of the country as it may deem advisable. The fourth section provides that the commission shall make to Congress final report of the result of its investigation at certain times prescribed in the bill. The bill in due order came again before the ComImittee of the Whole on March 28. Mr. Kasson spoke in its support. This proposition, Mr. Chairman, needs but very little debate. I know of very few people in the United States who admit they have no complaint to make against some part of the details of the present tariff. Whether you are free-traders or prohibitory tariff men, protective tariff men, or advocates of a tariff for revenue only, I take it for granted that you all agree that in some manner the present tariff should be reviewed and more or less modified. For the last twenty years, subject to some slight partial modifications, this country has been conducting its business under the present tariff laws. The interests of the country have become greatly modified and in some respects radically changed in the course of these twenty years. The free-trader denounces the whole tariff system in principle and detail, and demands revision for his destructive purposes. I may assume, then, sir, I think without dispute, that there is common consent on both sides of the House that there should be a revision of the tariff. It being admitted that a revision is necessary, the next question is as to the manner of the revision. Three methods are proposed. One of them is the ordinary method of the action of your Committee on Ways and Means reporting a bill to the House and obtaining action on that bill. The second is a proposition to combine members of the two Houses of Congress with civilian experts, and thus make a commission for the revision of your tariff; and the third mode is the selection of commissioners, civilian experts, if you please, who shall devote their whole attention to the subject, investigate the facts, the relation of one industry to another, the relation of raw material to the manifold forms of its finished product, its relation to the manufacture of the same things abroad; and, having completed that investigation, shall put it in compact and logical form, and so give us the facts upon which we shall revise and adjust the tariff. That is the third proposition, and it is the one presented by this bill. The Committee on Ways and Means, by a majority, considered the latter mode the best mode; and I think the House, upon candid consideration, will agree with them that the first mode, which involves a report simply from your Ways and Means Committee, is not the one that will bring us to union and harmony in the action of the House. Later experience is against it. During the last three Congresses, as well as in many instances before in previous Congresses, all your efforts by the Ways and Means Committee to procure a revision and procure action upon your tariff have utterly failed and the House has accomplished nothing in the way of results. Now, sir, what is the reason of that? I think we can all perceive it. We in the Ways and Means Committee go to our work upon that subject with fixed opinions and prejudices sharpened by political contact and fastened to a great extent upon us by the articles of the platforms of the respective parties. We are always antagonizing politics with the business of the country, so that everything that we report to you is more or less colored by the |