Page images
PDF
EPUB

revenue alone, or how far it will operate injuriously on those domestic manufactures hitherto protected; especially such as are essential in time of war, and such, also, as have been established on the faith of existing laws; and, above all, how far such proposed reduction will affect the rates of wages and the earnings of American manual labor.

Resolved, That it is unwise and injudicious, in regulating imposts, to adopt a plan which shall, either immediately or prospectively, reject all discrimination on articles to be taxed, and which shall confine all duties to one equal rate per centum on all articles.

Resolved, That, since the people of the United States have deprived the State governments of all power of fostering manufactures, however indispensable in peace or in war, by commercial regulations, or by laying duties on imports, and have transferred the whole authority to make such regulations, and to lay such duties, to the Congress of the United States, Congress cannot surrender or abandon such power, compatibly with its constitutional duty; and, therefore,

Resolved, That no law ought to be passed on the subject of imposts, containing any stipulation, express or implied, or giving any pledge or assurance, direct or indirect, which shall tend to restrain Congress from the full exercise, at all times hereafter, of all its constitutional powers, in giving reasonable protection to American industry, countervailing the policy of foreign nations, and maintaining the substantial independence of the United States.

Although the Compromise Tariff was intended for perpetuity it failed to outlive even the first of its two parts-that which provided for the protection of manufactures for a term of nine years. It expired in 1841. During the following year a new tariff act was passed, by which the average rate of duty was raised to about 33 per cent.

CHAPTER VII

THE WALKER TARIFF

[ACTS OF 1846 AND 1857]

The Tariff Act of 1846 (Proposed by Robert J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury)-Surplus in Treasury in 1857-Bill to Reduce Duties on Raw Materials Introduced in the House-Debate: in Favor, Nathaniel B. Durfee [R. I.], William W. Boyce [S. C.]; Opposed, Benjamin Stanton [O.], Justin S. Morrill [Vt.]-Bill Is Passed in the House-Robert M. T. Hunter [Va.] Proposes a Substitute in the Senate Embodying the Principle of Horizontal Reduction-Debate: Speakers of Varying Views, Sen. Hunter, Jacob Collamer [Vt.], George E. Pugh [O.], Henry Wilson [Mass.], William H. Seward [N. Y.], Robert Toombs [Ga.], Andrew P. Butler [S. C.]-Hunter's Substitute Is Adopted-Bill Is Passed in Both Houses and Approved by President Pierce.

D

URING 1842 revenues had so decreased as to be insufficient for the support of the Government. From this period down to 1846 various remedial plans were advanced but none was adopted.

Robert J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury under President Polk, soon after his advent in the Cabinet prepared an able and exhaustive report upon the tariff, laying down the following principles:

(1) That no more money should be collected than is necessary for the wants of the Government, economically administered; (2) That no duty be imposed on any article above the lowest rate which will yield the largest amount of revenue; (3) That below such rate discrimination may be made, descending in the scale of duties, or, for imperative reasons, the article may be placed in the list of those free from all duty; (4) That the maximum revenue duty should be imposed on luxuries; (5) That all minimums and all specific duties should be abolished, and ad valorem duties substituted in their place, care being taken to guard against fraudulent invoices and undervaluation, and to assess the duty upon the actual market value;

(6) That the duty should be so imposed as to operate as equally as possible throughout the Union, discriminating neither for nor against any class or section.

In accordance with these principles the tariff of 1846 was passed by Congress. This tariff approached nearer to a free trade policy than any in the history of this country. It was called "a revenue tariff with incidental protection," yet, according to Prof. William G. Sumner, of Yale, under it the manufacturers made “steady and genuine progress. Industrially and economically," he said, "it was our golden age. The balance of the trade was never more regular and equal."

There were eight schedules, each with its own ad valorem rate of duty, ranging from 5 per cent. on raw materials of manufacture to 75 per cent. on spirits, the average being 25 per cent.

The protectionists made futile attempts at various times between 1846 and 1857, when the tariff was next revised, to modify the act, and, indeed, to change its fundamental character, substituting the specific principle for the ad valorem in a number of schedules.

Under the tariff of 1846 such a surplus accumulated in the Treasury by 1857 that the circulating medium of the country was reduced in amount below the needs of business. There arose a general demand for a reduction of this surplus. The manufacturing interests appealed to Congress for a reduction or abolition of duties on raw materials; the agricultural interests then became alarmed, and demanded that the duty be retained on these and that it be reduced on manufactured articles. The chief contention was over wool and woolen goods After a long discussion, extending from the middle of January, 1857, to the close of the session (March 3), a new tariff bill was passed by which the average duty was lowered to about 20 per cent. ad valorem. It was denounced by its opponents, who hailed chiefly from the West and such wool-growing States elsewhere as Vermont, as the result of a selfish combination of Southern hemp and sugar producers, Pennsylvania iron-masters, and New England woolen manufacturers. The manufac

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

POLK VS. WOOL, OR THE HARRY-CANE

From the collection of the New York Historical Society

turers denied that it was a blow at the wool growers, claiming that, on the contrary, by building up the clothmaking industry in this country, it would create a great home market for wool of every grade.

RAW VS. MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 14-FEBRUARY 20, 1857 On January 14 Nathaniel B. Durfee [R. I.] spoke as follows in favor of the manufacturing interests:

By the report of the Secretary of the Treasury [James Guthrie], it appears that the national revenues exceed the exigencies of an economical national expenditure by from sixteen to eighteen millions of dollars.

Two modes of reduction are proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and are understood to be favored by the Administration: first, the admission of the raw materials of manufactures duty free; second, the admission of some articles of general consumption duty free, and a reduction of the duties upon others of that description, of some seven or eight millions of dollars. It is on the former of these two modes of reduction that I wish to make a few remarks.

The great manufacturing nations of Europe admit the raw materials of their manufactures free of duty. Now, this alone gives them a manifest and uncompensated superiority over us in all foreign markets; for, other things being equal, it is plain that the manufacturer who can procure his raw material at the cheapest rate can furnish the manufactured goods at the cheapest rate; and, therefore, under such circumstances, the manufacturer who can procure his raw material free of duty can afford to undersell the manufacturer who has to procure his raw material burdened with a duty, and exclude him from any market where both present themselves upon an equal footing. The difference in the cost of production per yard may be infinitesimally small, but in the result it is all the difference between the keeping and the losing of a market. Now, insofar as this difference depends upon the enhancement of the cost of raw materials by duties, is it clearly nothing more than common justice to remove it by the repeal of the duties unless there be some cogent reason for retaining them as a part of the necessary revenues, or for the protection of some interest

« PreviousContinue »