The tariff in the days of Henry Clay, and since. An exhaustive review of our tariff legislation from 1812 to 1896

HP Ml5 THE GIFT Ol THE GIFT OF A. 1 17 41^ 7/^j^^ CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1924 082 456 488 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924082456488 THE TARIFF IN THE DAYS OF Henry Clay and Since. AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW Of Our Tariff Legislation FROM I»I2 TO R By WILLIAM McKINLEY. Nkw Yokk : HENRY CLAY PUBLISHING CO. 1896. Copyright, 1896, by THOMAS E. O'SHEA. THE TARIFF IN THE DAYS OF HENRY CLAY AND SINCE Heney Clay was conspicuously and always a protec- tionist. As tlie acquaintance or friend of many of the founders of the Government, and of their immediate suc- essors in office, he learned from them his early lessons in political economy and statesmanship, and profited by their illustrious example. Born in Virginia in 1777, he had revered Washington with the ardor of youth; Lad become the clerk and protege of the learned and venerable Chancellor Wythe ; and was inspired to his :first oratorical efforts by the splendid eloquence of Patrick Henry. Agreeing with the doctrines of Adams and Hamilton, he yet espoused the cause of Jefferson and entered Congress in 1806, during his second term as President. Intimately associated with that great statesman, he participated with Madison, Monroe, and the younger Adams in the administration of the Gov- ernment, and for forty years earnestly advocated the great principles for which they in common contended. As Speaker of the House of Representatives he sup- ported the several protective tariff laws — five in num- ber—enacted from July 1, 1812, to February 5, 1816, which enabled the Government to successfully defray ihe extraordinary expenses of our second war with Eng- land. These laws increased the entire list of duties one ixundred per cent. ; doubled the rates, and placed a further duty of ten per cent, upon the goods imported! in foreign vessels, besides the large tonnage-tax of $1.50 per ton to the vessel. Under such a policy the Ameri- can market was reserved for the American manufac- turer; and, notwithstanding the severe drain and waste of the war, our country emerged from it more prosper- ous and wealthier than it had been at its beginning. It was at this period that Mr. Clay 'embraced with such fervency the advocacy of internal improvements and the firm establishment of the protective theory as the two great essentials of what he termed " the Ameri- can system." In a speech in January, 1816, he said : "I would effectually protect our manufactories. I would afford them protection not so much for the sake of the manufacturers themselves as for the general interest." This was the animating principle of his whole career. Despite the caution of Mr. Madison against precipi- tancy,* Congress supplanted these measures with the act of April 27, 1816, greatly reducing the war duties.. This bill did not receive the vote or support of Mr. Clay. Its effects were foreseen and deprecated by him,, and were described some years later as " most deplora- ble." " We behold," said he, " general distress pervad- ing the whole country; unthreshed crops of grain perishing in our barns for want of market ; an alarming * In his special message of February 30, 1815, transmitting a copy of the treaty of peace with England, President Madison declared: "There is no subject that can enter with greater force and merit into the deliberations of Congress than a consideration of the means to preserve and promote the manufactures which have sprung into existence and attained an unparalleled maturity throughout the United States during the period of the European wars. This source of National independence and wealth I anxiously recom.- mend, therefore, to the prompt and constant guardianship of Congress." •diminutioa of the circulating medium ; universal com- plaint of the want of employment, and consequent reduction of the wages of labor. To add to these evils there is, above all, a low and depressed state of the value of almost every description of property in the Nation, which has, on an average, sunk not less than fifty per cent, within a few years." Col. Benton's picture of the deplorable condition was no less graphic. "No medium of exchange exists," said he, "but depreciated paper; no change even, but -little bits of foul paper, marked so many cents, and signed by tradesman, barber, or innkeeper ; exchanges deranged to the extent of fifty to one hundred per cent. Distress the universal cry of the people, relief the universal demand thundered at the doors of all legislatures, State and Federal." Mr. Clay made a gallant effort to enact a more •efficient tariff in 1820, and carried his bill through the House, to be indefinitely postponed in the Senate by a single vote. It was at this time that he said : "The War of the Revolution effected our political ■emancipation. The late war (1812) contributed greatly to our commercial freedom, but our complete independ- ence will only be consummated after the policy of protection shall be recognized and adopted." No relief came until the passage of the act of May 22, 1824, which was largely the work of Mr. Clay, and enacted through his controlling skill and genius. This was not a partisan measure, nor was it enacted by sectional divisions in either branch of Congress. In the House, for example, the bill was supported by such prominent Democrats as James Buchanan, of Peun- sylvania; Louis McLaae, of Maryland, and Samuel Houston, of Texas ; in the Senate, by sucli leaders as Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, Martin Van Buren, of New York, and Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. It will be observed that in this conspicuous group are three statesmen who each subsequently became President of the United States,, and one. Col. Johnson, Vice-President. All gave ardent support to the doctrine of protection as the great essen- tial to our industrial and commercial prosperity. In the vote on the passage of the bill in the House, New England cast fifteen yeas, twenty nays; the Mid- dle States, sixty yeas, fifteen nays ; the South, fourteen yeas, sixty-four nays ; and the new States of the West, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, eighteen yeas, but not a solitary negative vote. Kentucky, also, under the lead- ership of Mr. Clay, was a unit in its favor. It was in the course of this debate that Mr. Clay delivered his celebrated speech of March 31, 1824, which is to this day a strong and effective argument for the protective policy. In discussing the relative advantages of foreign and domestic trade, he said: "The greatest want of civilized society is a market for the sale and exchange of the surplus of the pro- duce of the labor of its members. This may exist at home or abroad, or both, but it must exist somewhere if society prospers ; and wherever it does exist it should be competent to the absorption of the entire surplus of production. It is most desirable that there should be both a home and a foreign market. But, with respect to their relative superiority, I can not entertain a doubt. The home market is first in order and paramount in importance. The object of the bill under consideration is to create this home market, and to lay the foundations of a genuine American policy. The creation of a home market is not only necessary to procure for our agricul- ture a just reward for its labors, but it is indispensable to obtain a supply of our necessary wants. If we can not sell, we can not buy. The sole object of the tariff is to tax the produce of foreign industry with a view to promoting American industry." The effects of this legislation were immediate and gratifying, realizing the predictions of its friends and promoters. Every class felt the revival of business and the general prosperity ; the factory, the farm, our ship- ping, mercantile, commercial, and mining interests all enjoyed the change. Some years later Mr. Clay him- self bore eloquent testimony to the improved conditions of the country. In his memorable speech in the Senate on February 2, 1832, he said : " If I were to select any term of seven yeairs since the adoption of our present Constitution which exhibi- ted a scene of the most undisputed dismay and desola- tion, it would be exactly that term of seven years which immediately preceded the establishment of the tariff of 1824 If the term of seven years were to be selected of the greatest prosperity which the people have enjoyed, it would be exactly that period of seven years which immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824." With the act of 1828, still further increasing the duties, Mr. Clay had no immediate part, as he was then Secretary of State. In the earlier tariff debates Mr. Calhoun had appeared as a protectionist, and Mr. "Web- ster as his opponent. In 1824 their positions were exactly reversed, and in 1828 Mr. Webster again favored an increase of duties. Most of the distin- guished Democrats already mentioned were supporters of the law of 1828, and to their aid that great leader Silas Wright, of New York, contributed the weight of his splendid abilities. Five gentlemen who sub- sequently became President were recorded on the pas- sage of the act — Van Buren, William Henry Harrison and Buchanan for, and Tyler and Polk against it. Never in any subsequent period of our history have the duties been higher, or the protective principle more rigidly sustained. The condition of the National finances was emi- nently satisfactory ; the public debt was being rapidly reduced, and the Treasury contained a surplus. Under these conditions, Mr. Clay, again in the Senate, in May, 1830, offered a resolution "for the immediate abolition of all duties on all articles not coming into competition with similar articles made or produced in the United States, except those on wines and silks, which ought to be reduced." This was opposed by Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, and others, who proposed instead a re- duction of all duties, but after much discussion the acts of May 20 and May 29, 1830,— three in all- were passed. The first reduced the imports on cocoa, tea and coffee. The other two, passed May 29th, pro- vided, respectively, for a decrease in the duty on molasses, with a drawback on spirits, and for a reduc- tion of the duty on salt. No general reduction, however, was made until two years later. Then President Jackson recommended a revision of the tariff, and on January 9, 183 2, Mr. Clay renewed his resolution for a reduction of duties on non- competing articles. The opposition demanded the change of rates to a revenue standard. This Mr. Clay earnestly opposed. In his great speech of February 2, 1832, he said: "The fall of the protective policy would te pro- ductive of consequences calamitous indeed. When I look to the variety of the interests involved, to the number of individuals interested, the amount of capital invested, the value of buildings erected, and the whole .arrangement of the business for the prosecution of the various branches of the manufacturing arts which have sprung up under the fostering care of this Government, I can not contemplate any evil equal to the sudden overthrow of all these interests. History can produce no parallel to the extent of mischief which would be produced by such a disaster. The repeal of the edict of Nantes itself was nothing in comparison with it. That condemned and brought to ruin a great number of persons; the most respectable portion of the popu- lation of France were condemned to exile and ruin by that measure. But, in my opinion, the sudden repeal of the tariff policy would bring ruin and destruction on the whole population of this country. There is no evil, in my opinion, equal to the consequences which would result from such a catastrophe." In the same debate he expressed what was to him always a firm conviction when he declared : " Gentlemen deceive themselves ; it is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is in effect the British or colonial system that we are in- vited to adopt, and if tBis policy prevail, it will lead, substantially, to the re-colonization of these States, under the commercial dominion of Great Britain." The result of the contention was the revision of the tariff on the lines proposed by Mr. Clay, as provided in the act of July 14, 1832. The position of Mr. Clay was identical with that of ex-President John Quincy Adams, who, on May 22d, submitted a report to the House from the Committee on Manufactures, ably sus- taining the protective policy. In the course of his argument, Mr. Adams said : "Under that system of policy (the protective) the Nation has risen from a depth of weakness, imbecility, and distress to an eminence of prosperity unexampled in the annals of the world. It was by counter legisla- tion to the regulations of foreign nations that the first operations of the Government of the United States were felt by the people ; felt in the encouragement and protection given to their commerce ; felt in the fulfill- ment of the public engagements to the creditors of the Nation; felt in the gradual discharge of the debt of gratitude due to the warriors of the Revolution ; felt in the rapid increase of our population, in the con- stantly and profitably occupied industry of the people, in the consideration and respect of foreign nations for our character, in the comfort and well-being and happi- ness of the community ; felt in every nerve and sinew, in every vein and artery of the body politic." South Carolina assumed to be greatly offended that the reduction of duties was not much larger, and proceeded to place herself in an attitude of hostility to the General Government by promptly passing a law, commonly known as the "Ordinance of Nullification," declaring that the new tariff was unconstitutional and void, and should not be collected in that State. Proclamation was made, by the authority of the Legislature, that if the Government of the United States should in any way attempt to enforce the tariff laws by means of its Army and Navy, then "South Carolina will no longer consider herself a member of the Federal Union." The cause of her advocacy of nullification and seces- sion, however, as Col. Benton observes in his '' Thirty Years' View " was really " not the tariff at all, but the institution of human slavery." Mr. Calhoun realized that the policy of protection to home industry was in- imical to the employment of cheap or enslaved labor. President Jackson met the issue boldly, and in Feb- rury, 1833, secured the j)assage of what was designated at the time as "the Force Bill," by which he would have und(jubtedl\' secured the collection of the revenues in South Carolina, had the nullification movement not been promptly abandoned. In his efforts for peace and the Union, however, Mr. Cla}- had mean while been active in the attempt to secure the passage of a bill, which, while it would provide a gradual reduction of duties, would still preserve intact the protective system. His ideas were embodied in the bill he introduced in the Senate on February 12, 1833, (which became a law in two weeks, or on February 26th,) that is known as one of the three great " Compromises " with which his name and fame are so inseparably connected. The friends of Jackson, Clay and Calhoun were for once united in support of the same measure, and it passed the Senate by a vote of twenty-nine to sixteen. Still some of the strong men of that body, Webster, Benton, the venerable Samuel Smith, of Maryland, and Mahlon Dickerson, of New Jersey, voted against it. A bill to reduce the tariff had previously passed the House but Mr. Clay's bill was accepted by it as an amendment and passed that body immediately by a vote of 119 to 85, Four of the six New England States, and Dela- ware, New Jersey, and Missouri voted solidly against it and all the Southern members but two for it. Taking the tariff of 1832 as the basis, the "Clay Com- promise " provided for an ultimate reduction of duties on all imports to a uniform level of twenty per cent, ad valorem. One tenth of the excess above twenty per cent was to be taken off on January 1, 1834 ; one tenth on January 1, 1836 ; one tenth on January 1, 1838 ; one tenth on January 1, 1840 ; three tenths on January 1, 1842, and the remaining three tenths on July 1, 1842. The "compromise" consisted in the swift reduction of duties after January 1, 1842, as a concession to the " NuUifiers, " and the slow and gradual reduction prior thereto as a concession to the protec- tionists. The new law calmed the excitement in the South, but its effects were otherwise unhappy and disastrous. More than any other one cause it is generally charged that it occasioned the great financial crisis of 1837, a sad period of gloom and disaster almost equal to that which had preceded the enactment of the tariff of 1824. Mr. Clay believed that experience would, as it did, speedily teach the j)eople a just appreciation of the ad- vantages of jsrotection to home industry. He believed that " the American system woald soon become firmly 10 j)lantecl in the bosoms and affections of the j^eople.'" He had in no sense forsaken his creed ; he simply sought to save the protective principle from disuse and aban- donment. Never were the policy or opinions of any statesman more completely vindicated. Within five years a panic swept over the country that almost beggars description for its severity and distress. Not only were manufactures prostrated, but commerce,, navigation, mining, and especially agriculture, shared in the general ruin. The scenes Clay and Benton had so. vividly portrayed in 1824 were repeated, only as de- velopment had increased, the losses now appeared still more frightful. Mortgages were foreclosed and forced, sales made in every direction ; thousands of able-bodied men were out of work, or toiling at not more than twenty-five cents per day ; while other thousands, un- able to obtain employment at any price, with their wives and children, were obliged to appeal for charity, and rely upon the free soup-houses, which were estab- lished in every city, for the only food they could procure. Sophistry can not withstand the piercing gaze of public opinion. Theories will not avail against facts. False leaders appealed in vain, but the people attributed their distress in great part to the existing tariff, and when opportunity again came, as it did in the National election of 1840, they overthrew and drove from power, in every branch of the Government, the party they held responsible for it, by most surprising majorities. As a result of this great revolution, and in obedience to the popular will. President Tyler, although himself a free-trader, felt constrained, on August 30, 1842, to- give his assent to another great protective tariff law. 11 The history of its passage is peculiarly interesting. The Twenty-seventh Congress was Whig in both "branches by a majority of thirty-one on joint ballot — the Senate, Whigs 28, Democrats 22; and the House, Whigs 133, Democrats 108. At the beginning of the session, in December, 1841, Millard Fillmore, the Whig leader of the House, moved the reference of so much of the President's messasje as related to the tariff to the Committee on Manufactures, the customary and proper reference, to the Committee which had framed all the tariff bills of our earlier Congresses. Charles G. Atherton, of New Hampshire, the leader of the Democratic side, moved as a substitute to refer it to the Committee on Way and Means. His purpose thereby, as he fully avowed in debate, was that "the revision of duties should be made Avith exclusive refer- ence to the raising of revenue, and that the pro- tection of our industrial interests should not be con- sidered at all." Even without the final reduction under the Compromise tariff of 1833, which was to occur on July 1, 1842, the revenue was not sufficient for the support of the Government, and Mr. Clay had insisted in the Senate that the duties of necessity must be raised for that object alone to at least thirty per cent, ad valorem. Mr. Atherton's motion was lost. Seventy-one Demo- crats and twenty-four Southern Whigs voted in the affirmative, but they were overruled by the negative votes of ninety Whigs and fourteen Democrats — the latter all from Pennsylvania but three. The subject was then referred to the Committee on Manufactures, by whom a bill and report were promptly presented. _Bon. Walter Forward, of Pennsylvania, Secretary of the 13 Treasury, also made an elaborate report, and submitted a bill to Congress, and a third bill and report were sub- sequently offered by the Senate Committee on Manu- factures. The bills were in accord in recognizing the principle of protection but differed in details. The best features of all three were embodied in a bill that passed the House on July 16th, by the vote 116 to 112. William Parmenter, of Massachusetts, was the only Democrat who voted in the affirmative. Fourteen Whigs and ninety-eight Democrats voted in the negative. The supporters of the bill included John Quincy Adams, William Pitt Fessenden, Francis Granger, William Cost Johnson, William L. Goggin, Kenneth Eayner, of North Carolina, Nathaniel Gr. Pendleton and Jeremiah Morrow, of Ohio, Richard W. Thompson and Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, Thomas F. Marshall, of Kentucky, Zadoc Casey, of Illinois, and Jacob M. Howard, of Michigan. It passed the Senate on August 5th — yeas twenty-five, all Whigs; nays twenty-three, all Democrats but three. To the very general regret and surprise, President Tyler vetoed the bill, because " it did not suspend the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several States of the Union," which had been provided by an act passed in September, 1841, that he himself had signed. Co ogress received Tiis message with great indignation and the House attempted to pass the bill over his veto, but this failed for want of the required two-thirds vote. Another but substantially the same bill was passed by both branches of Congress within the next fortnight 13 and this, too, was vetoed by Mr. Tyler. His second veto message, on motion of ex-President Adams, was referred to a special Committee of Thirteen, of which Mr. Adams became Chairman, and in such capacity- wrote a scathing report against what he characterized as the President's arbitrary and inconsistent actions.. He declared that Mr. Tyler ought to be impeached, and this was the general opinion of the Whigs of the country, both in and out of Congress, although they realized that such a thing was impossible. This report so irritated the President that he sent a protest to the House in which he sought apparently to- interfere with its legitimate functions and powers. John Minor Botts, of Virginia, thereupon offered the same resolution* which the Senate had adopted in 1834 (and for which Mr. Tyler had himself voted), in censuring President Jackson for a somewhat similar action. This was adopted by a strictly party-vote — yeas (Whigs), 87 ; nays (Democrats), 46. A provisional tariff bill, to supply revenue until something more satisfactory could be agreed upon, was next attempted. In the discussion of this bill in the House, on August 22d, Hon. Thomas T. McKennan, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert the bill which had been twice * The student of history will recall that this was the Senate resolution offered by Mr. Clay in his controversy with President Jackson about the removal of the Government deposits from the United States Bank at Philadelphia. It was adopted by the Senate, on March 28, 1834, by a vote of twenty-six to twenty, and read as follows : Besolved, That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both. It was for this resolution that Mr. Tyler, then a Senator from Virginia, had voted. 14 vetoed already, omitting the section regarding the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of land, and the clause imposing a duty of twenty per cent, ad valorem on tea and coffee. He was a new member, but so great was his ability and so persuasive his eloquence, that his motion prevailed and the bill passed the House by the close vote, yeas 105, nays 103. Of the affirmative votes, eighty-five were Whigs, and twenty Democrats, ten of the latter from New York, nine from Pennsylvania, and one from Massachusetts. Of the negative votes, sixty-eight were Democrats, and thirty- five Whigs; some of whom, although staunch protection- ists, would not surrender their convictions as to the land controversy in any emergency. This bill, with some further slight modifications, passed the Senate, on August 27th, by the bare major- ity of a single vote — yeas, twenty-four ; nays, twenty- three. Twenty Whigs and four Democrats (Ruel Will- iams, of Maine, Silas Wright, of New York, and James Buchanan and Daniel Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania) voted in the affirmative, and fifteen Democrats and eight Southei-n Whigs in the negative. It numbered among its supporters George Evans, Richard H. Bayard, Rufus Choate, John J. Crittenden, William L. Dayton, and William A. Graham. The House concurred in the Senate amendments, and, to the general surprise, the bill was promptly approved by the President. The framers of the new law were evidently im- pressed with tLe truth of Mr. Clay's wise maxim enun- ciated when referring in former years to ad valorem duties. " Let me fix the value of foreign merchandise," said he, " and I do not care what your duty is.'' 16 Specific duties were substituted for ad valorem as far as possible throughout the whole list. It proved a wise and beneficent measure, even more strongly protective than its friends at first had thought it would be. During the four years it was in operation it raised the country from the depths of financial depression and distress to a condition of confidence and prosperity such as it had not enjoyed since 1832. So widely popular was the new law that in the Pres- idential campaign of 1844, the Democrats in the critical Northern States were as earnest and outspoken advo- cates of it, and the doctrine of protection, as the friends of Mr. Clay. Their candidate for the Presidency, Hon. James K. Polk, of Tennessee, had uniformly voted against protective measures in Congress, but on the other hand Hon. George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, had as a Representative been an active supporter of all such bills. It was this fact, more than any other, that led to his nomination. Indeed, in the exigencies of the campaign, Mr. Polk himself felt constrained to write his friend, Mr. John K. Kane, of Philadelphia, on June 19, 1844, the only avowal of political principles he made " for the public eye " after his nomination. In this letter he declared that he had " voted for the tariff of 1832," the act of all others most offensive to South Carolina, and desired to " afford reasonable incidental protection to home in- dustry " in keeping with " the policy of General Jack- son on this subject." "In my judgment," said he, "it is the duty of the Government to extend, as far as it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws, and 16 all other means within its power, fair and just protec- tion to all the great interests of the whole Union, em- tracing agriculture, manufactures, and the mechanic arts, commerce and navigation." By this and similar assurances the fears of the pro- tection wing of the party were put to rest. This was true in Pennsylvania especially, then " the pivotal State " of the Union, for there the efforts of Mr. Dallas and Mr. Buchanan were successful in October, and the prestige of this triumph practically insured the election of Mr. Polk. It was so successful that Mr. Polk not only received majorities in the manufacturing centers of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, as " a better pro- tectionist than Clay," but the planters of Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi were induced to support him with equal unanimity because as the Democratic leaders in those States declared, " Polk was, and always had been, the consistent and uncompromising enemy of the protective policy." His election accomplished, Mr. Polk called into his Cabinet, as Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, a zealous free trader, who was willing to go to any extreme in support of his theo- ries. As Senator he had opposed the law of 1842, and was well known to be intent upon its repeal. The Twenty-ninth Congress, elected in 1844, was Democratic in both branches, so that the Administra- tion could reasonably expect to direct its fiscal legisla- tion. Mr. Walker at once assailed the protective law, "given to the country by a Whig Congress" in terms of great severity. He submitted a report upon the tariff in which he arraigned our manufacturers as but 17 little better than public conspirators, guilty of botb deceit and extortion. His report was hailed with de- light in England, but found little favor at home. Richard Cobden declared that " he had never read a better digest of the arguments in favor of free trade than that put forth by Mr. Secretary Walker and ad- dressed to the Congress of the United States." He- commended Mr. Polk's annual message of December,. 1845, also, and "congratulated his (British) associates that both President Polk and Mr. Secretary Walker had taken the task out of our hands of lecturing to the people of America upon the subject of free trade." Indeed, this was the general opinion of English leaders, so freely declared that the House of Lords ordered the report of Secretary Walker to be printed and dis- tributed throughout the kingdom. Encouraged and supported by the President, Mr. Walker at length secured not only the repeal of " the odious Whig law," but the enactment of a bill meet- ing his own views, then and since commonly known as "the Walker tariff." This was not done, however, without disagreement in the Cabinet, heated contests in Congress, and much dissatisfaction among the rank and file of the Northern Democracy. The vote in the House, on the passage of the bill, July 3, 1846, resulted — yeas, 114; nays, 93. Among those voting in the negative were twenty members from the South, including such Whig leaders as Garrett Davis, of Kentucky ; Meredith P. Grentry, of Tennessee ; James Graham, of North Carolina; John S. Pendleton, of Virginia; and Robert Toombs and Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia. These men joined heartily with 18 svLch. prominent leaders of the North as John Quincy Adams, George Ashmun and Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts; Charles J. Ingersoll and James Black, ■of Pennsylvania; Jacob Collamer, of Vermont; Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana ; Washington Hunt, of New York ; and Columbus Delano, Robert C. Schenck and Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, in every effort to retard or defeat the bill. In the Senate, the contest was still more stubborn and uncertain, and is a familiar and memorable inci- dent in the annals of American politics. . The body was evenly divided upon it and the Adminstration prevailed in the end only through the action of Vice- President Dallas, who, contrary to his own offc-ex- pressed convictions and life-long affiliations, gave the ■casting vote in favor of the passage of the bill. The test vote was taken on July 28th, twenty-seven Senators voting for the bill, and twenty-seven against it. Of those voting in the affirmative, seventeen were from the slave-holding; States and ten from the free, all Democrats. Of those voting against the bill eleven were from the South, and sixteen from the North, all Whigs but three — -John M. Niles, of Connecticut, and Simon Cameron and Daniel Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania. Despite the attempts to divide the Whigs on sectional lines, some of the strongest leaders of the South stood side by side with Webster, Corwin, Evans, Niles and Cameron in upholding the cause of protection. Crit- tenden, of Kentucky, Berrien, of Georgia, the Claytons, of Delaware, Mangum, of North Carolina, and Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, eloquently sustained the policy of their party and good of the country. President Polk 19 was quick to approve the laAV, and it went into effect August 30, 1846. By tlie new law the duties were for the first time ex- clusively ad valorem. On articles where the protective principle had directly applied under the old law the duties averaged about twenty-four per cent. It em- braced nine schedules, under the headings A to I, respect- ively. The first schedule, spirits, bore a duty of one hun- dred per cent.; the second, tobacco, spices, wines, pre- served fruits and meats, forty per cent.; the third, rated at thirty per cent, carpets, cotton, silk, linen, wool, glass, leather, sugar, iron, and minor articles ; the next four fixed rates at twenty-five, twenty, fifteen, ten, and five per cent, respectively upon the bulk of the merchandise then imported to this country ; the remaining schedule was devoted to an enlarged free list. The average duties under the law, on the importations of 1847, were twenty-seven and seven-tenths per cent.; but in 1856 they fell to twenty-one and sixty-eight-hundreths. It was the boast of the author of this law, and it is to this day claimed by his adherents, that the so-called Walker tariff "remained unchanged for eleven years, during which time the country enjoyed great prosperity; and that it was then voluntarily amended by its friends only in the direction of their well established free- trade policy." While it is a fact that the law was not amended until 1857, it is a matter of dispute whether it brought "prosperity to the country," and it is not true that the people ever gave it their express approval. Indeed, in the Congressional elections of 1846, when the country was engaged in a foreign war and the patriotic impulses of the people would naturally have 20 led them to sustain the' Administration, so great was the indignation over the new tariff, that a Democratic majority of sixty-two in the House was changed to a Whig majority of three — a clear Whig gain of sixty-five in a total membership of 227. Seldom since has the country witnessed so striking a condemnation of any measure by public opinion. Again, in the Presidential campaign of 1848, it was due to the tariff policy of the Administration that Penn- sylvania gave her electoral vote to Taylor instead of Cass, thereby defeating the latter. The State had been Democratic since the days of Jefferson ; it had sustained Jackson ; it had voted for Van Buren, in 1836 ; for Polk, in 1844 ; and, in 1848, no divisions were apparent within the party on the question of slavery. Yet Taylor carried the State over both C.iss and Van Buren b}^ about 2,300 votes, and over Cass alone by 13,500. Had Cass re- ceived the electoral vote of Pennsylvania, despite the loss of New York, he would have been elected. In that State, at least, the people did not endorse, or at all ap- prove, of " the noble impulse given to the cause of free trade, by the repeal of the tariff of 1842, " commended by the Democratic National platform. During the National campaigns of 1852 and 1856, and in the Congressional elections of 1850, 1854, and 1858, the constant and exciting contentions over slavery en- grossed public attention. No other political issue was discussed, nor was the condition of the business affairs of the country from 1847 to 1856 generally such as to especially excite partisan differences. Anticipating for the moment the passage of the law of 1857, let us con- sider the claim of the advocates of free trade that this 21 country enjoyed "unexampled," or "great and excep- tional prosperity, from 1847 to 1861," the period when the tariff - for - revenue - only policy held sway in the country. Simultaneous with President Polk's approval of the "Walker bill came the declaration of war with Mexico. This led to the employment of an army of 100,000 men, and the outlay of more than $150,000,000 among the people for its support, above the ordinary expendi- tures of the Government, during the next two years. Before this stimulus to our manufactures and trade began to subside, a terrible famine occurred in Ireland. This caused an unprecedented demand for our bread- stuffs and brought to the United States extraordinary shipments of specie. Then followed the European rev- olutions of 1848, by which the trade and manufactures of the entire continent were disturbed, and in some dis- tricts suspended. Importations to the United States were stopped, and for the time being our manufacturers enjoyed both the home market and a profitable foreign trade. Next came the discovery of gold in California, carry- ing to our Western shores the surplus jjopulation of our manufacturing and agricultural districts, and sending back to the East abundant streams of the precious metals. Such a condition was more than accidental — it was in the highest degree fortunate and providential. During the six years following 1848 it drew to the Pacific Slope from the older States a splendid popula- tion of enterprising and vigorous citizens, and added to the wealth of the world more than $640,000,000, in the output of gold alone. With such advantages we 22 should have become not only immensely wealthy, but amply able to meet every demand of the Government without borrowing a dollar for years to come had we possessed a wise fiscal policy. But in 1854 the output of gold showed signs of decline and failure, and then, by another of the remarkable incidents of the time influencino; our busi- ness conditions, the Crimean war broke out — a war between England, France, and Russia, three of the leading powers of Europe and the world. " Con- fusion worse confounded " reigned in the industrial circles of Europe for the next two-and-a-half years, and dui'ing this period the United States enjoyed the richest harvest she had ever before reaped from foreign lands. Our country could hardly have been depressed under such remarkable conditions. But when peace came to Europe, manufacturing was resumed in England and France with greater energy and with more alluring prospects for trade in America than had ever before been known. Then naturally, and inevitably, with our vastly increased importations, and consequent dependence upon foreign factories, our whole business situation was swiftly changed from apparent prosperity to actual distress. The tai iffi-f or-revenue-only policy rested at length solely upon its own merits. We were as a nation pursuing the hazardous experiment of spend- ing abroad the money we should have kept at home. The gold of California, the largest product of that precious metal so far discovered in any country, was speedily drained by Europe. Within a year after the close of the Crimean waj-, this country was dis- ss tressed and humiliated by the only financial panic it had experienced for twenty years, since the adoption of a somewhat similar tariff policy to that it was then pursuing. After the Democratic victory in the Presidential campaign of 1856, the administration of Mr. Pierce, under the influence of Secretaries James Guthrie, of Kentucky, and Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, made haste to secure the passage of an act to still further reduce existing duties. Our importations were already unprecedentedly large, but it was claimed that the revenues were more than the Government required, or could properly apply in its legitimate expenditures, including the payment of the National debt. Accord- ingly the law of March 3, 1857, was enacted. It passed the House by a vote of 118 to 72, and met with but little opposition in the Senate. The members from the Western States were the most conspicuous of those from any section in speaking and voting against it. ^Questions of " popular sovereignity " and " free soil for free men " were absorbing the public mind both in and out of Congress. Party lines were not drawn, nor was any general apprehension manifested as to the bad policy of the pending measure. The new duties averaged about nineteen per cent, ad valorem, with abundant loopholes for undervaluation and fraud, and afforded probably less protection than those of any other tariff law in our history. The immediate effect was an increase in importations, and a heavy drain upon the specie of the country, while there was a marked reduction in the exportation of our agricultural products. A financial crash was 24 inevitable, and it fell witli disastrous force upon the country in the fall of 1857 within six months after the passage of the new law. The panic soon swept over the entire Union, prostrating alike our agricultural, commercial, mining, and manufacturing interests. The need of relief everywhere was so apparent that Pi'esident Buchanan in his first annual message, on December 8, 1857, felt constrained to appeal to Con- gress to do all in its power "to increase the confidence of the manufacturing interests and give a new impulse to business." His description of the condition of the times is, so striking that it bears frequent repetition. " In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the pro- ductions and elements of National wealth," said he, "we find our manufactures suspended, our public works retarded, our private enterprises of different kinds abandoned, and thousands of useful laborers thrown out of employment and reduced to want." Then came the admission, which has always been made when- ever the free trade policy was adopted, that "the same causes which have produced pecuniary distress through- out the country have so greatly reduced tbe amount of imports from abroad that the revenue has proved inadequate to meet the necessary expenses of the Government." The stagnation of business and paralysis of trade and enterprise continued during the next four years, with severe and widespread distress, almost as great and ex- hausting as during the previous low-tariff financial de- pressions of 1819-24 and 1837-42. It was impossible- to repeal the new law, even if the Administration had, attempted it. 35 In this period of fifteen years, from 1847 to 1861, in- clusive, during which the economic theories of Mr. Walker j)revailed, the total receipts from customs were $708,107,973, while the outlays of the Government were $807,133,078. Consequently the expenditures exceeded the receipts by $99,025,105. Thus as strictly revenue measures the laws of 1846 and 1857 were both un- satisfactory. During the eleven years of the contin- uance of the tariff of 1846, the expenditures of the Grovernment exceeded its receipts $21,790,909. Of this deficit, $8,205,305 occurred during the years 1855, 1856, and 1857; so that when the act of 1857 was passed, it should have been apparent that while the ex- penditures were constantly increasing, the revenue was steadily diminishing. During the three years named our imports of merchandise exceeded our exports by nearly $123,000,000, while our exports of specie amounted to $132,500,000. During the four years of the operation of the tariff of 1857, the total receipts from customs were $184,125,000, and the expenditures, $261,359,196. Thus the expenditures of the Govern- ment exceeded its receij)ts $77,234,196, and the new law was shown to be even more inadequate for revenue purposes than that of 1846. Unsupported by the fortunate events which had for ten years given us the appearance of great prosperity, our own vast product of gold, and the benefits accruing to our people by reason of a great foreign war, the system did not sustain itself for a single year. Instead of our having a large balance of trade always in our favor, as should have been conspicuously the case, our foreign imports exceeded our exports of home 26 products by the tremendous sum of $448,354,907,, while the exports of our specie exceeded the im- ports of money from other countries by the startling aggregate of $406,519,261. Can it be doubted that it" the protective policy had been steadily maintained during this period and the duties had remained as fixed by the tariff of 1842, that there would have been not only an abundance of revenue, but that the public debt, principal and interest, would all have been extinguished, and the Treasury able to furnish abund- ant means to defend the imperiled life of the Nation at the outbreak of the Civil War? Instead, our credit was gone and it was with great difficulty that the Government could borrow money either at home or abroad, and then only by selling our bonds bearing a high rate of interest at a heavy discount. An able financier has stated his confident belief that $200,000,000 in specie, which he declares could readily have been provided by a protective tariff between 1850 and 1860, would have kept the National debt $1,000,- 000,000 below the vast sum it attained during the war. Certain it is, that with a surplus instead of a deficit in the Treasury, the Nation would not have been put to- the shame of " having its pajaer hawked in the money markets at the usurious rate of one per cent, a month."* Yet to this condition we were reduced under a revenue tariff in the summer of 1860. Never was there a period in our history in which the free trade policy had so excellent an opportunity to demonstrate its usefulness and adequacy to our indus- trial and govei'umental conditions. But, instead of in- * James 6. Blaine. ■suring prosperity, it produced universal distress and want ; instead of raising money to support the Govern- ment, even during a time of peace and wonderful development, the system of duties it provided was utterly insufficient and produced results exactly the opposite of those claimed for it. As soon as the foreign wars ceased, the revenue began to diminish and the expenditures to exceed it, thus creating deficiencies and enforcing loans and increasing our National debt from $15,500,000, in 1846, to $90,580,000, on March 4, 1861. While it may be claimed that in the Presidential •campaign of 1860, the tariff played no decisive part, and that other issues controlled, still at the Republican ISTational Convention, next to the resolutions opj)osing the spread of slavery into territory then free, the fol- lowing declaration of the platform is reported to have elicited the most pronounced* applause : "While providing revenue for the support of the Greneral Grovernment by duties upon imports, sound policy requires sucli an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country. We commend, therefore, that policy of National exchanges which secures to the workingman liberal wages, to agriculture renumerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the Nation commercial prosperity and independence.'' This was accepted then and has always and every- where since been accepted as a cardinal doctrine in the ■creed of the Republican party. Seldom, if ever, has it * Murat Halstead, in the OiQcinnati Gommercial, an eye-witness of all the INational Conventions of this year. 28 been better stated than in these significant sentences. Both wings of the discordant Democracy stood ready to join issue upon the tariff, but it was necessarily of subordinate interest in most of the States. In Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, however. Republican chances were de- cidedly benefited by the position of the party on the tariff. Pennsylvania had been carried in 18.56 against General Fremont for President, and in 1857 against Hon. David Wilmot, for Governor, directly upon the slavery issue. The majority for Mr. Buch- anan had been 82,800; and for Hon. William F. Packer, over Mr. Wilmot, 42,750. It will be remembered that Mr. Wilmot was personally the very embodiment of the anti-slavery issue, and that issue in 1860 was in no re- spect more favorable to the Republicans, in any of its various phases, than it had been in 1857. Without the discussion of the tariff, it was confidently asserted by men of all parties, that in all probability Pennsylvania would have been lost by the Republicans in October, and that Avould inevitably have defeated the National ticket in November. The Republican candidate for Governor, Hon. Andrew G. Curtin, was quick to realize this condition of public oj^inion. It was very largely due to his effect, ive appeals to the workingmen of the State, that Re- publican success was assured. In an increased vote, Mr. Curtin carried the State in October by a majority of 82,164, and thus insured it for Mr. Lincoln, who triumphed over all opposing candidates by nearly 60,000. From beginning to end of the campaign Mr. •Curtin devoted the gi'eater part of his time to the dis- 29 cussion of the tariff, and his brilliant victory not only electrified the Republicans of the State and Nation, but clearly demonstrated the strong hold the protective principle had upon the affections of the people. During Mr. Buchanan's entire term the receipts of the Treasury were insufficient to meet the appropria- tions of Congress and the Grovemment steadily incurred a large debt. To check this increasing deficit, the House, which was controlled by the Republicans, in- sisted upon a bill providing a scale of duties which would yield a larger revenue, and on May 10, 1860, succeeded in passing it. This bill had been prepared and reported by Hon. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont. It met with but little favor on the majority side of the Senate, and was postponed until the next session. At that time, owing to the absence of the Southern mem- bers, the whole aspect of affairs was changed. The Republicans suddenly found themselves in control of the Senate, and the bill was