Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted | by foreign nations. This surely cannot be the case; this indispensable power, thus surrendered by the States, must be within the scope of the authority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress. In this conclusion I am confirmed as well by the opinions of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly recommended the exercise of this right under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general understanding of the people."

John Q. Adams, in 1832, in a report from the Committee on Manufactures, said,

at home. The consequence of this is that the artisan and the agriculturist are brought together, each affords a ready market for the produce of the other, and the whole country becomes prosperous; and the ability to produce every necessary of life renders us independent in war as well as in peace.... I therefore strongly recommend a modification of the present tariff, which has prostrated some of our most important and necessary manufactures, and that specific duties be imposed sufficient to raise the requisite revenue, making such discrimination in favor of the industrial pursuits of our own country as to encourage home production without excluding foreign competition."

In his annual message of Dec. 6, 1852, Presi

"And thus the very first act of the organized Con-dent Fillmore said: gress united with the law of self-preservation, by the support of the Government just instituted, the two objects combined in the first grant of power to Congress; the payment of the public debts, and the provision for the common defence by the protection of manufactures. The next act was precisely of the same character, an act of protection to manufactures still more than of taxation for revenue."

[blocks in formation]

"Without repeating the arguments contained in my former message in favor of discriminating protective duties, I deem it my duty to call your attention to one or two other considerations affecting this subject:"The first is the effect of large importations of foreign goods upon our currency. Most of the gold of California, as fast as it is coined, finds its way directly to Europe in payment for goods purchased. In the second place, as our manufacturing establishments are broken down by competition with foreign

"I am in favor of the internal improvement system ers, the capital invested in them is lost, thousands of and a high protective tariff.”

[blocks in formation]

"The protection of American labor against the injurious competition of foreign labor, so far, at least, as respects general handicraft productions, is known historically to have been one end designed to be obtained by establishing the Constitution; and this object, and the constitutional power to accomplish it, ought never to be surrendered or compromised in any degree."

Rufus Choate, in the United States Senate, March 14, 1842, said,

"But this I am ready to avow: that the protection of American labor, on all its fields, and in all its forms, is to be kept constantly and anxiously in view in all our arrangements; that you have the constitutional power to secure that protection, and that you are bound to do so, regardless of every thing and everybody but the Constitution, justice, and a true and large American policy."

President Taylor, in his first annual message (1849) said,

"I recommend a revision of the existing tariff, and its adjustment on a basis which may augment the revenue. I do not doubt the right or duty of Congress to encourage domestic industry, which is the great source of national as well as individual wealth and prosperity. I look to the wisdom and patriotism of Congress for the adoption of a system which may place home labor at last on a sure and permanent footing, and by due encouragement of manufactures, give a new and increased stimulus to agriculture, and promote the development of our vast resources and the extension of our commerce. Believing that to the attainment of these ends (as well as the necessary augmentation of the revenue and the prevention of frauds) a system of specific duties is best adapted, I strongly recommend to Congress the adoption of that system, fixing the duties at rates high enough to afford substantial and sufficient encouragement to our own industry, and at the same time so adjusted as to insure stability." President Fillmore, in his first annual message (Dec. 2, 1850), said:

"A duty laid upon an article which cannot be produced in this country, such as tea or coffee, adds to the cost of the article, and is chiefly or wholly paid by the consumer. But a duty laid upon an article which may be produced here stimulates the skill and industry of our own country to produce the same article, which is brought into the market in competition with the foreign article, and the importer is thus compelled to reduce his price to that at which the domestic article can be sold, thereby throwing a part of the duty upon the producer of the foreign article. The continuance of this process creates the skill, and invites the capital, which finally enables us to produce the article much cheaper than it could have been procured from abroad,

honest and industrious citizens are thrown out of em. ployment, and the farmer, to that extent, is deprived of a home market for the sale of his surplus produce. In the third place, the destruction of our manufactures leaves the foreigner without competition in our mar. ket, and he consequently raises the price of the article sent here for sale, as is now seen in the increased cost of iron imported from England.

"The prosperity and wealth of every nation must depend upon its productive industry.

The farmer is stimulated to exertion by finding a ready market for his surplus products, and benefited by being able to exchange them, without loss of time which his comfort or convenience requires. This is or expense of transportation, for the manufactures always done to the best advantage where a portion of the community in which he lives is engaged in other pursuits.

"But most manufactures require an amount of cap. ital and a practical skill which cannot be commanded unless they be protected for a time from ruinous competition from abroad. Hence the necessity of laying those duties upon imported goods which the Constitution authorizes for revenue, in such a manner as to protect and encourage the labor of our own citizens. Duties, however, should not be fixed at a rate so high as to exclude the foreign article, but should be so graduated as to enable the domestic manufacturer fairly to compete with the foreigner in our own markets and by this competition to reduce the price of the manufactured article to the consumer to the lowest rate at which it can be produced.

"This policy would place the mechanic by the side of the farmer, create a mutual interchange of their respective commodities, and thus stimulate the indus try of the whole country, and render us independen of foreign nations for the supplies required by the habits or necessities of the people."

General Garfield, in the House of Repre sentatives, June, 1878, declared:

"So important, in my view, is the ability of th Nation to manufacture all those articles necessary arm, equip, and clothe our people that if it could n be secured in any other way I would vote to pay mont out of the Federal Treasury to maintain Governme iron and steel, woollen and cotton mills, at whatev cost. Were we to neglect these great interests, an depend upon other nations, in what a condition helplessness would we find ourselves when we should be again involved in war with the very nations on whon we were depending to furnish us these supplies? The system adopted by our fathers is wiser, for it so encou rages the great National industries as to make it possible at all times for our people to equip themselves for war, and at the same time increase their intelligence and skill, so as to make them better fitted for all the duties of citizenship, both in war and in peace. Wel provide for the common defence by a system which promotes the general welfare."

t

1

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

James G. Blaine, in his " Twenty Years of Congress," 1884, writes:

"Protection, in the perfection of its designs, as described by Mr. Hamilton, does not invite competition from abroad, but is based on the controlling principle that competition at home will always prevent monopoly on the part of the capitalist, assure good wages to the laborer, and defend the consumer against the evils of extortion."

General Logan, in his letter accepting the Vice-Presidential nomination, 1884, wrote:

"The true problem of a good and stable government is how to infuse prosperity among all classes of people the manufacturer, the farmer, the mechanic, and the laborer alike. Such prosperity is a preventive of crime, a security of capital, and the very best guaranty of general peace and happiness. The obvious policy of our Government is to protect both capital and labor by a proper imposition of duties. This protection should extend to every article of American production which goes to build up the general prosperity of our people."

General Harrison, in his speech to the visiting commercial travelers, at Indianapolis, Aug. 18, 1888, said:

"Do not allow any one to persuade you that this great contest as to our tariff policy is one between schedules. It is not a question of seven per cent reduction. (Applause.) It is a question between wide apart principles. (Cries of "That's right.") The principle of protection; the intelligent recognition in the framing of our tariff laws of the duty to protect our American industries and maintain the American scale of wages by adequate discriminating duties (cries of "That's right") on the one hand, and on the other a denial of the constitutional right to make our custom duties protective, on the assertion of the doctrine that free competition with foreign products is the ideal condition to which all our legislation should tend." (Applause.)

Nor need we look to the utterances of the Republican statesmen of our own country alone, nor to the facts themselves alone, as proof that the prosperity of America is incidental to the Republican-American system of Protection. As far back as May 14, 1882, Bismarck, in a speech before the German Reichstag, said:

"The success of the United States in material de velopment is the most illustrious of modern time. The American nation has not only successfully borne and suppressed the most gigantic and expensive war of all history, but immediately afterward disbanded its army, found employment for all its soldiers and marines, paid off most of its debts, given labor and homes to all the unemployed of Europe as fast as they could arrive within its territory, and still by a system of taxation so indirect as not to be perceived, much less felt. Because it is my deliberate judgment that the pros. perity of America is mainly due to its system of protective laws, I urge that Germany has now reached that point where it is necessary to imitate the tariff system of the United States."

PART II.

Tariff Legislation from 1789 to 1793. The primary and principal causes under

from the conflict between our colonial ancestors, in support of native industry, and the British trader, backed by all the authority and power of the Crown and Parliament, in his efforts to destroy all manufacturing industry in the colonies, and make the colonists dependent upon England for their supplies. Colonial manufactures, by act of Parliament, were even declared a nuisance. Our fathers revolted. They conquered their independence, and in 1783 entered the community of nations as a sovereign power.

Failure of the original Confederation due to lack of "protection" — The present Government organized with full powers to "protect."

The Confederation failed in all the essential to secure to the "infant industries of particulars of government. It utterly failed America, to the domestic manufactures of the new States, that encouragement and protection to secure which, in their recent unequal conflict with the formidable power of Britain, they had staked their "lives and fortunes and sacred honor." Hence it was soon pronounced an injurious abortion, and the substitute for it a new and more vigorous people resolved to abolish, it-to create and government, with ample powers to secure those objects and to execute all its delegated trusts.

Thus, in 1789, the government of the old Confederation was supplanted by our present National Government through the adoption of our National Constitution. The union or organization of the States as one nation, under a government with ample powers to protect them in their industrial pursuits, had no more earnest, no more enthusiastic or active supporters, than the mechanics and laboring men. They celebrated its adoption amid the heartiest rejoicing.

The first Tariff Resolution

Act.

-The first Tariff

The First Congress under our National Constitution organized April 6, 1789. On April 8, within seventy hours after its organization, James Madison, in the House, introduced a resolution declaring that "duties ought to be levied on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States." The Congress agreed with Mr. Madison. This First Congress, in both Houses of which were many who had been members of the convention that framed the Constitution, adopted "An Act laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States." It was our first tariff act. It was the first measure of our National Government, the second law enacted by Congress under our present Constitution, and was approved by George Washington as President, on July 4, 1789. The imposts which it levied were both specific and ad valorem, and its preamble distinctly declared that those imposts were "necessary among other things "for the encouragement and protection of

Domestic enterprises, native interests, exercised all the solicitude and care of this Congress. At its second session it enacted the tariff of Aug. 10, 1790, by which the duties of the previous act were on an average increased 2 per cent, and at both sessions, following the example of England and other powers, established a system of navigation laws, through which heavy discriminating tonnage duties were exacted for the encour agement and protection of our native shipping and trade.

and promote them." The marshals and their assistants in taking the census of 1810 were also instructed to obtain full and reliable information respecting our manufacturing establishments and manufactures. The information or data thus obtained was meagre and defective. An analysis or digest of the manufacturing returns and an estimate of the value of manufactures were made under the direction of the treasury by Mr. Tench Coxe, a distinguished statistician of Philadelphia. It was ascertained that few woollen manufactories existed in the United States,

Protective Tariffs of 1789 and 1790 passed but that the woollen and cotton manufactures

by Southern Votes.

The following is an analysis of the vote in the House upon the tariff of 1790, which confirmed, and under the recommendations of Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, increased, some of the rates of the act of 1789:

AYES

consumed in the country were principally the products of looms in families, and their estimated value was about $40,000,000. The value of the manufactures of iron was reported at $14,364,526; of the products of the tannery at $17,935,477; of those from grain at $16,528,207; of those of wood at $5,554,708; of the manufacture of refined sugar at $1,415,724; of paper, etc., at $1,939,285; of glass at $1,047,004; of tobacco at $1,260,378; of cables and cordage at $4,242,168, etc.

The

Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke, Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Conter, Fitzsimmons, Floyd, Gilmer, Hartley, Heister, Huntington, Jackson, Livermore, Lawrence, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Muhlenburg, Page, Parker, Rensse laer, Scott, Seney, Sevier, Sherman, Sylvester, Sin-aggregate value of manufactures of all kinds nickson, Steele, Sturgis, Sumter, Vining, White, was returned at $127,694,602. By a previous Williamson, and Wynkoop-39. estimate of Mr. Gallatin the value was fixed at $120,000,000.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Benson, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Goodhue, Grout, Sedgwick, Smith of Maryland, Smith of South Carolina, Thatcher, Trumbull, and Wadsworth 13.

In all 52 votes, 21 of which voting "aye" were from Southern or slave-holding States. The following is an analysis by States:

New England States: For-New Hampshire, 2;

That was not a very flattering exhibit, But the embargo and non-intercourse acts. the retaliatory measures adopted by our Government in 1807 and 1808 against the tyrannical restrictive decrees of England and France, followed as they were by our war of 1812-15 with Britain, practically excluded from the country all foreign imports, and by throwing our people upon their own resources to supply the domestic demand, particularly for manufactures of wool, cotton, and hemp, Slave States For - Delaware, 1; Maryland, 3; greatly increased and encouraged the home Virginia, 7; North Carolina, 5; South Carolina, 2; manufacture of those materials. NevertheGeorgia, 3; total, 21. Against-Delaware, 0; Mary-less, the close of the war in 1815 found them

total, 9.

Massachusetts, 0; Connecticut, 2; total, 5. AgainstNew Hampshire, 1; Massachusetts, 6; Connecticut, 2; Middle States: For New York, 4; New Jersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 7; total, 13. Against-New York, 1; New Jersey, 0; Pennsylvania, 0; total, 1.

land, 2; Virginia, 0; North Carolina, 0; South Carolina, 1; Georgia, 0; total, 3.

Recapitulation: For - New England States, 5; Middle States, 13; Southern States, 21; total, 39. Against New England States, 9; Middle States, 1; Southern States, 3; total, 13.

[blocks in formation]

in swaddling-clothes. The high price of labor in the United States, and the long experience and superior skill of the British establishments, rendered it impracticable for the domestic manufacturers to sustain themselves without protection against the foreign article. That the British trader well knew. He accordingly determined to crush out the manufactures of the United States in their infant state, even at a heavy sacrifice to himself in profit. Our markets, therefore, were kinds. Thus the value of our imports, which soon glutted with foreign products of all from Jan. 1, to Sept. 30, 1815, was only following year, from October, 1815, to Octo$83,080,073, suddenly increased during the

From 1793 to 1807, the memorable period of our commercial craze, very little attention was bestowed by our people upon manufac-ber, 1816, to the vast sum of $155,302,700. tures. But, with the disastrous collapse of In the House of Commons, Mr. Brougham, our commercial ventures, manufacturing with manifest satisfaction and in plain lanenterprises again occupied our capitalists.guage, announced the policy and the purposes In 1809 the House ordered the reprinting of of the British trader. He urged: Hamilton's celebrated report on manufactures. It also directed Mr. Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury, to collect information respecting the various manufactures of the United States, and report the same,

"to

"It is well worth while to incur a loss upon the cradle those rising manufactures in the United States first importation, in order by the glut to stifle in the which the war had forced into existence contrary to the natural course of things."

Our citizens throughout the country en

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

"What, then, are the effects of a war with a mar. itime power-with England? Our commerce annihilated, spreading individual misery, and producing national poverty; our agriculture cut off from its accustomed markets, the surplus product of the farmer perishes upon his hands, and he ceases to produce because he cannot sell. His resources are dried up, while his expenses are greatly increased, as all manufactured articles, the necessaries as well as the conveniences of life, rise to an extravagant price... The failure of the wealth and resources of the nation necessarily involves the ruin of its finances and of its currency. It is admitted by the most strenuous advo cates on the other side that no country ought to be dependent on another for its means of defence, that at least our musket and bayonet, our cannon and ball, ought to be of domestic manufacture. But what was more necessary to the defence of a country than its currency and finance? Circumstanced as our country Behold the is, can these stand the shock of war? effect of the late war upon them! When our manu. factures are grown to a certain perfection, as they

On March 12, 1816, Hon. William Lowndes, a member of the House from South Carolina, distinguished alike for ability and patriotism, reported from the Committee on Ways and Means the tariff act of 1816-a bill "to reg-soon will under the fostering care of Government, we ulate the duties on imports and tonnage." will no longer experience these evils. The farmer Hon. Thomas Newton, of Virginia, on Feb. will find a ready market for his surplus produce, and, what is of almost equal consequence, a certain and 13 and March 6, from the Committee on cheap supply of all his wants. His prosperity will Manufactures, had reported in favor of en- diffuse itself to every class in the community; and couraging and protecting the manufactures instead of that languor of industry and individual disof wool and cotton, and in the debate upon commerce, the wealth and vigor of the community will tress now incident to a state of war and suspended Mr. Lowndes's bill, Henry Clay of Kentucky, not be materially impaired. The arm of Government John C. Calhoun and Lowndes of South will be nerved, and taxes in the hour of danger, when Carolina, Ingham of Pennsylvania, and essential to the independence of the nation, may be others, ably contended for a "decided protec-greatly increased; loans, so uncertain and hazardous, may be less relied on. Thus situated, the storm may tion to home manufactures by ample duties." beat without, but within all will be quiet and safe. The celebrated John Randolph of Roanoke, To give perfection to this state of things, it will be opposed the bill. Mr. Randolph was a strict necessary to add, as soon as possible, a system of constructionist. He believed and urged that of our navy as will prevent the cutting off of our internal improvements, and at least such an extension a "tariff for protection," the levying of im- coasting trade." posts for the encouragement and support of manufactures, was as unconstitutional as it was unjust - a "levying of taxes on one portion of the community to put money into the pockets of another."

In this Mr. Randolph was antagonized among others by Mr. Calhoun in an argument in which he in substance reiterates and supports the views of Alexander Hamilton's report of 1791 on Manufactures.

[ocr errors]

66

Mr. Calhoun, in that argument, favors the encouragement and protection of our home industries. He regards the subject as one of "vital importance," touching as it does the security and permanent prosperity of our country." He was no manufacturer. He was not from that portion of our country He supposed to be peculiarly interested. was from the South". from South Carolina. "Consequently no motives could be attributed to him but such as were disinterested." "The security of a country mainly depends on its spirit and means.' Hence "as every people are subject to the vicissitudes of peace and war, it must ever be considered as the plain dictate of wisdom in peace to prepare for war." He then reviews the resources of the country, discusses the relative importance of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures as a source of national wealth and power, demonstrates the superiority of manufactures, because agriculture and commerce, being dependent on foreign markets, only flourish in times of peace, but

[ocr errors]

Mr. Calhoun next reviews at some length, and rebuts, one by one, the arguments urged against manufactures as a system; maintains with great force the policy of finding profitable investment of our capital, and remunerative employment for our mechanics, by multiplying and protecting manufactures as permanent establishments; and with some indignation refutes and repels the charges which, even in that day, were stale and flat, that manufacturing establishments "destroy the moral and physical power of the people; that they were "the fruitful cause of pauperism," ," and produced a slavish dependence of the operative upon the manufacturer. exclaimed:

-

Не

"It [the encouragement of manufactures] produced a system strictly American, as much so as agriculture, in which it had the decided advantage of commerce and navigation. The country will from this derive much advantage. Again, it is calculated to bind togreatly increase our mutual dependence and intergether more closely our wide-spread Republic. It will course, and will, as a necessary consequence, excite an increased attention to internal improvements — a subject every way so intimately connected with the fection of our political institutions. He regarded the ultimate attainment of national strength, and the perfact that it would make the parts adhere more closely; that it would form a new and most powerful cement far outweighing any political objections that might be and the union of the country were inseparably united; urged against the system. In his opinion, the liberty that, as the destruction of the latter would most cer tainly involve the former, so its maintenance will with equal certainty preserve it.”

Nor did he "speak lightly." Mr. Calhoun

long revolved it in his mind;" that he "had critically examined into the causes that de

PART V.

stroyed the liberties of other countries," and The Tariffs of 1824 and 1828-The Com

closes with a solemn warning to the Nation

[blocks in formation]

It

This powerful and patriotic argument was delivered in the House on April 4, 1816. had a commanding effect. A few days later, on the Sth, the Tariff Act of April, 1816, largely extending and increasing the specific duties on foreign goods and adopting the minimum principle of valuation in estimating imposts, for the encouragement and protection of manufactures, passed the House by a vote of yeas 88, nays 54. It was passed by Southern votes. Among those voting in the affirmative are such distinguished Southern names as Cuthbert and Lumpkins of Georgia, Desha and Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky, Philip P. Barbour, Thomas Newton, and Henry St. George Tucker of Virginia, Mayrant, Woodward, Lowndes, and Calhoun of South Carolina.

Vote on its passage.

promise Tariff of 1833 and the Conse

quent Disasters - The Tariff of 1842.

The great Tariff Acts of 1824 and 1828 only increased and extended and strengthened the provisions of the Act of 1816, while preserving its principle in support of its beneficent national purposes - the encouragement of a system of home industries under the protection of the Nation.

The tariff act of March 2, 1833, commonly known as the compromise tariff, provided for a biennial reduction of duties on all foreign imports which shall exceed 20 per cent on the value thereof of one tenth of such excess up to 31st December, 1842, when the residue of such excess should be deducted. This was the principal stipulation of the act. Among other provisions it contained that of a home valuation in assessing Mr. Calhoun and his nullifying adherents. -a provision peculiarly obnoxious to

duties

The passage of the tariff act of 1828 was peculiarly odious to South Carolina and other States South, which kept up an unceasing agitation against it, threatening nullification YEAS-Messrs. Adgate, Alexander, Archer, Ather- and even civil war if it was not repealed. ton, Baker, Barbour, Bassett, Bateman, Baylies, Bennett, Betts, Birdsall, Boss, Brooks, Brown, Cady, Cald. This threatening attitude of South Carolina well, Calhoun, Cannon, Chipman, Clendennin, Com- unduly alarmed some of the friends of prostock, Crawford, Creighton, Crocheron, Cuthbert, tection. It led to the passage of the tariff Darlington, Davenport, Desha, Glasgow, Gold, Gros- act of March 2, 1833. Henry Clay, the author venir, Habu, Hall, Hammond, Hawes, Henderson, Hop of the act, believing the principle of proteckinson, Ingham, Irvin of Pennsylvania, Jewett, Johnson of Kentucky, Kent, Langdom, Lowndes, Lumpkin, tion in peril, introduced the compromise act Lyle, Maclay, Marsh, Mason, Mayrant, McCoy, Mc- as a means of preserving that principle. In Lean of Kentucky, Milnor, Newton, Noyes, Ormsby, the Senate. in the debate upon this bill, Mr. Parris, Piper, Pitkin, Pleasants, Powell, Ruggles, Sergeant, Savage, Schenck, Sharpe, Smith of Pennsyl. Clay urged: "The main object of the bill is vania, Smith of Maryland, Southard, Strong, Taggart, not revenue, but protection." In reply to Taul, Throop, Townsend, Tucker, Wallace, Ward of Senators who maintained that the bill abanNew York, Ward of New Jersey, Wendover, Whea-doned the protective principle, Mr. Clay ton, Whiteside, Wilkin, Willoughby, Thomas Wilson, declared that "the language of the bill William Wilson, Woodward, and Yates 88. Nays, 54-total, 142. authorized no such construction, and that no one would be justified in inferring that there was to be an abandonment of the system of protection." Mr. John M. Clayton, of Delaware, a staunch protectionist and supporter of the bill, said:

-

Of the 88 yeas, 25 in italics are of men from the South. If those twenty-five had voted nay, the result would have been-yeas 63, nays 79-thus defeating protection. As it was, these Southern votes decided the House in favor of protection to manufactures. Our protective system practically established by the act of 1816.

Here in the principles and provisions of this Act of April, 1816, we have the practical foundation of the American policy of encouragement of home manufactures, the practical establishment of the great industrial system upon which rests our present national wealth and the power and the prosperity and happiness of our whole people! Here, in this Act, supported by Henry Clay, by Henry St. George Tucker, and by Lowndes and John C. Calhoun! Here, in this Tariff Act passed by Southern votes, by the votes of men at the time national and patriotic in their purposes and views, by leading spirits of the South against the vigorous protest and the yotes of

"The Government cannot be kept together if the principle of protection were to be discarded in our policy, and declared that he would pause before he surrendered that principle even to save the Union.”

And Mr. Clay added:

for nine years and less beyond that term. The friends "The bill assumes, as a basis, adequate protection of protection say to their opponents, we are willing to take a lease of nine years, with the long chapter of accidents beyond that period, including the chance of war, the restoration of concord, and along with it a conviction common to all of the utility of protection, and in consideration of it, if, in 1842, none of these contingencies shall have been realized, we are willing to submit as long as Congress may think proper, with the maximum of 20 per cent.

This was the origin of the avowed purpose of the supporters of the act-to preserve the protective principle, believed at the moment to be in danger.

The effects of the compromise tariff of

« AnteriorContinuar »