which the exporter was to prove under oath that the duties had been paid, and to state their amount. Provision was made for the transportation of imported goods from one district to another, as well as for their exportation. Proof was required of the arrival of the goods at the foreign port and the forms therefor laid down.1

Subsequent laws repealed some of these provisions and made other slight changes. But the manner of establishing, determining and paying drawbacks has always been left largely to the regulation of the Secretary of the Treasury. Drawbacks were also allowed on the exportation of articles which had paid internal revenue taxes.

It is worth while to note a curious result of the system of drawbacks toward the end of the last century. The Act of June 5, 1794, imposed an internal revenue tax of eight cents a pound on all snuff manufactured in the United States, and to offset this tax increased the import duty on snuff to twelve cents a pound. On March 3, 1795, the internal tax was replaced by a tax on snuff mills, and a drawback of six cents a pound was allowed for all snuff exported. The result was that the drawback exceeded the tax, and that snuff now began to be manufactured in large quantities for the sake of the drawback. This necessarily led to the suspension and finally to the repeal of the law. But the system of drawbacks was continued in the case of other articles subject to internal taxation. The same system was renewed in connection with the internal revenue taxes levied during the war with England.

The great extension of the internal taxes during the civil war increased the importance of the drawback system.2 The

1 See supra pp. 27 and 31.

* Prior to 1842, in the exportation of goods on which the duty had not been paid, the debentures given to secure payment were cancelled on the payment of one per cent. of the amount, but on the adoption of cash payments there was naturally an immediate and heavy falling off in the amount of dutiable goods, etc. exported (see supra p. 50). Indeed, it was principally to restore this export business that the warehousing system was adopted, though it did not accomplish the

Act of August 5, 1861,1 provided that on all goods manufactured wholly of imported materials on which duties had been paid, a drawback equal to ninety per cent. of the duties so paid should be allowed under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury might appoint.

The recent tariff act provides (§ 25) that on the exportation of articles, in the manufacture of which imported materials are used, there shall be allowed a drawback equal to ninety-nine per cent. of the duties paid, provided that the articles be so made that the quantity or measure of the dutiable goods can be ascertained. The Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to make regulations by which the imported material in an exported product should be identified, the quantity used and the duties paid ascertained, the facts of the manufacture of the product in the United States and its export therefrom determined, and the drawback paid. To accomplish all this the Secretaries' regulations are of necessity so strict and burdensome that a great part of the contemplated benefit of the drawback is lost.

The early laws all allowed bounties on the exportation of pickled fish. The act of July 30, 1846 (§ 5), substituted in lieu of these bounties a drawback equal to the amount of the duties paid on the salt used in curing the fish, and the act of July 28, 1866,3 provided that salt in bond might be used for that purpose and the duties remitted on the amount proved to have been so used. The use of materials in bond has been considerably extended by the recent act. It provides (§ 10) that all medicines, preparations, compositions, perfumery, cosmetics, cordials and other liquors manufactured wholly or desired result, and the storage of goods to be re-exported has never been its chief function.

1 37th Congress, Session 1, Chapter 45.

2 The law of June 6, 1872, Vol. 17, Statutes at Large, 238, extended this to certain classes of manufactured articles in which the imported material "exceeds one-half of the value of the material used."

3 Re-enacted June 6, 1872.

in part of domestic spirits intended for exportation, may be thus manufactured in bond and exported under the inspection of appointed officers. A similar privilege was extended to smelters and refiners by section twenty-four. A temporary provision of like nature was made for the refining of sugar in bond without the payment of duty between March 1 and April I, 1891.

6. Abolition of Fees.

By section twenty-two all fees exacted and oaths administered were abolished except in so far as they were provided for in the act itself. When such fees would formerly have constituted, in whole or in part, the salary of any officer, the law provided that such officer should receive a fixed sum for each year equal to the amount which he would have been entitled to receive as fees for such services during the year. Thus a step was taken towards the desired total abolition of fees. But the salaries of officers were left as indeterminate, as unclassified and as hopelessly disproportioned to their duties and responsibilities as ever. Another reform, the need of which has been long felt, but which this act, like its predecessors, did not attempt, and which for political reasons is distasteful to our legislators, is the abolition of many useless and expensive customs establishments and the consolidation. of districts. This reform is demanded alike for reasons of economy and because of the changed conditions of commerce and transportation.

There are other reforms and experiments now demanded and advocated, and we may look forward to more or less frequent legislation on this subject. It is almost impossible to administer changing laws with an unchanged system. As long as the tariff policy of our government remains unsettled, we may expect its customs method to remain unfixed.

May we not say that from an administrative as well as an economic standpoint, perhaps as much mischief has resulted from the frequent changes in our tariff laws as from their defects?

CONCLUSION.

GENERAL TENDENCIES OF TARIFF ADMINISTRATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

FROM this brief outline of what seem to be the more prominent features of our tariff administration, we may say that there has been, on the whole, a steady development towards more stringent supervision, regulation and control over the importer. In summing up this development, perhaps we may roughly divide the objects of the system into three classes, conveniently designated as the protective, the preventive and the punitive.

I. The Protective System.-Under the early laws the protection of the revenue was insufficient because of long credits, etc. After long discussion and severe experience, the protection was made complete by the harsh requirement of cash payments, in 1842. The tendency from that time on was to alleviate the rigor of that law by more liberal provisions, such as warehousing and its accompaniments. During the civil war there was a sharp reaction and a curtailment of those privileges, followed ever since by their steady extension, without in any way endangering the revenue.

II. The Preventive System. Again we find the system starting with slight preventives against fraud, and apparently administered for the first quarter of a century upon the basis of confidence in the importer. When this confidence was once lost, it was lost never to return. Since then the laws of entry, inspection and appraisement have been steadily more extended, and have become increasingly severe.

III. The Punitive System. The law of 1799 contained heavy penalties and allowed summary methods of procedure.

These methods were rarely resorted to, however, although suits increased gradually as time went on. The rigorous enforcement of the harsh provisions of the law of 1861 brought about their extensive modification, until they were practically abolished in 1874. This over-action has been followed by the moderate reaction of the last law, whose adoption has been too recent to allow even of prediction as to future enactments.