and not what you please." DEMOCRATIC POSITION SINCE THE WAR. Since the war the Democratic party has never had the courage to avow its free trade principles, but with all its changes it has still drifted back toward its old position. In 1864 it declared in its national platform for "a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports, and such equal taxation under the internal revenue laws, as will afford incidental protection to domestic manufactures." In 1872 it supported Horace Greeley on a platform which "recognizing irreconcilable differences of opinion with regard to the respective systems of protection and free trade, we remit the discussion of the subject to the people in their congressional districts." In 1876 it denounced "the present tariff," declared “reform is necessary In the sum and modes of federal taxation," and that "we demand that all custom-house taxation shall be only for revenue. In 1880 it simply proposed "a tariff for revenue only." In 1884 it indulges in a long tirade of denunciation of Republican tariff legislation, pledges itself "to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to all interests," declares that "it is not proposed to injure any domestic industries, " but that "the necessary reduction can and must be effected without depriving American labor of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor, and without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample to cover any increased cost of production which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages prevailing in this country." In 1888 it is still of opinion that in reforming the tariff "our established domestic industries should not be endangered," but that "due allowance for the difference between the wages of American and foreign labor," so as to "encourage every branch of such industries." But in 1892 it recovers from this lapse into protectionism, and declares "We denounce Republican protection as a fraud, a robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few. We declare it to be a fundamental prínciple of the Democratic party that the federal government has no constitutional power to impose and collect tariff duties, except for the purposes of revenue only." And here, at last, it gives an honest utterance to its sentiments. No more tenderness concerning "established industries"; no more twaddle about "allowing for difference of wages"; no "incidental protection" nonsense. No "protection is a fraud"; "tariff for revenue only"; "the government is a federation;""the constitution does not permit the protection of any industry." And so the Democratic party plants itself again on its ante-war, State sovereignty platform of free trade. Such are its declarations. We shall see how it attempts to carry them out. hing for more than it is worth, nor will he want TARITT ISSUE BEFORE THE WAR, (Continued.) It was then that Calhounism took a definite position in favor of slavery as right, per se, of free trade in the interest of slavery, and of the subjugation of the Democratic party to the will of the slave oligarchy. The immediate dispute concerning the tariff was settled for the time being by a compromise act, gradually reducing the duties at stated periods. In 1840 the Whig party elected General William H. Harrison as President, obtained a majority of members in Congress, and passed the protective tariff of 1842. In 1844 the Democrats were successful, and in 1846 repealed the Whig measure, and passed the tariff of 1846, commonly called the "Walker Tariff." Its character may be best stated in the language of the national Democratic platform of 1848. * "Resolved, That the fruits of the great political triumph of 1848, which elected James K. Polk, * * * have fulfilled the hopes of the Democracy of the Union, * * in the noble impulse given to the cause of free trade by the repeal of the tariff of 1842, and the creation of the more equal, honest, and productive tariff of 1846." Notwithstanding this boast, events proved that this free trade measure was neither equal, honest, nor productive. During the fifteen years of its existence, with its modification in 1857, the balance of foreign trade was constantly against us, to meet which we sent abroad all the gold taken from the rich mines of California. The crash, postponed by the Mexican war and its events, came in 1857, of which President Buchanan says: "With all the elements of national wealth in abundance, our manufactures were suspended, our useful public and private enterprises were arrested, and thousands of laborers were deprived of employment and reduced to want." Mr. Buchanan tries hard to persuade himself that this was not due to the tariff, but with an empty treasury, declining revenues, and ad valorem frauds, it was useless, and he was compelled to say to Congress: "It is now quite evident that the financial necessities of the government will require a modification of the tariff during your present session for the purpose of increasing revenue. In this aspect I desire to reiterate the recommendation contained in my last two annual messages in favor of imposing specific instead of ad valorem duties on all imported articles to which these can be properly applied." And so this unequal, dishonest, and unproductive free trade measure, which had squandered $400,000,000 * of gold in buying foreign goods, which we ought to have made ourselves, and created a public debt of $50,000,000 † from deficient revenue, gave place to the Morrill protective tariff of 1861, with the incoming of the Republican party. • Export of specio $432,128,116; Imports of specie $23,460,856; Loss $408,667,259. and not what you please.” DEMOCRATIC POSITION SINCE THE WAR. 66 Since the war the Democratic party has never had the courage to avow its free trade principles, but with all its changes it has still drifted back toward its old position. In 1864 it declared in its national platform for "a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports, and such equal taxation under the internal revenue laws, as will afford incidental protection to domestic manufactures." In 1872 it supported Horace Greeley on a platform which “recognizing irreconcilable differences of opinion with regard to the respective systems of protection and free trade, we remit the discussion of the subject to the people in their congressional districts." In 1876 it denounced "the present tariff," declared “reform is necessary In the sum and modes of federal taxation," and that "we demand that all custom-house taxation shall be only for revenue." In 1880 it simply proposed "a tariff for revenue only." In 1884 it indulges in a long tirade of denunciation of Republican tariff legislation, pledges itself "to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to all interests," declares that "it is not proposed to injure any domestic industries, "but that "the necessary reduction can and must be effected without depriving American labor of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor, and without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample to cover any increased cost of production which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages prevailing in this country." In 1888 it is still of opinion that in reforming the tariff "our established domestic industries should not be endangered," but that "due allowance for the difference between the wages of American and foreign labor," so as to "encourage every branch of such industries." But in 1892 it recovers from this lapse into protectionism, and declares "We denounce Republican protection as a fraud, a robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few. We declare it to be a fundamental prínciple of the Democratic party that the federal government has no constitutional power to impose and collect tariff duties, except for the purposes of revenue only." And here, at last, it gives an honest utterance to its sentiments. No more tenderness concerning "established industries"; no more twaddle about "allowing for difference of wages"; no "incidental protection" nonsense. No "protection is a fraud"; "tariff for revenue only"; "the government is a federation;" "the constitution does not permit the protection of any industry." And so the Democratic party plants itself again on its ante-war, State sovereignty platform of free trade. Such are its declarations. We shall see how it attempts to carry them out. and equal and universal freedom to a victorious A All matter in this volume is arranged in alphabetical order by sections, the BLACK FACED LETTERS indicating the subjects. AD VALOREM DUTIES vs. SPECIFIC DUTIES. AN AD VALOREM DUTY Is a stated per cent. that is levied upon the value of the goods imported. Illustration: The duty on certain manufactures of silk is fifty per cent. of their foreign value. A SPECIFIC DUTY Is one laid on the quantity of the goods imported; it is so much per yard, per ton, per bushel, etc., without regard to the cost; for example: "Eggs, 5 cents per dozen," or "Wheat, 25 cents per bushel." An ad valorem duty, as the name implies, is a certain per cent. of the value of the goods at the point of shipment; for example, "Horses and mules, 20 per cent. ad valorem." Each of these methods of rating has advantages over the other in special cases, and in some instances it seems best to combine them. But where practicable the specific duty is to be preferred to the ad valorem. In the first place, the ad valorem duty is more favorable to fraud. It is usually difficult to judge the difference in the value of two articles, while on the other hand standards of weight and measure can easily be applied. As Henry Clay once said, in speaking against ad valorem duties, "Let me write the invoices and I care not who fixes the duties." In the second place, the ad valorem duties aggravate the fluctuations in price of imported goods and of revenue from them, each increase in import price being accompanied by an increase of duty, and vice versa. And in favor of specific duties it may be said that they encourage the importation of better goods. Thus, if the duty on horses is so much a head, it has the effect of barring out the poorer grades. In "reforming backward" from the specific duties of the McKinley act toward ad valorem duties, the committee has ignored the teachings of experience as recorded in history. The subject was discussed by the "Fathers of the Constitution," who Joined in framing our first tariff, with marvelous directness, intelligence, and foresight, and with a decided preference for specific duties. ALEXANDER HAMILTON, In 1795, then Secretary of the Treasury, said: internal improvements. -Abraham Lincoln. AD VALOREM DUTIES, (Continued.) number of articles rated ad valorem, and, of course, to extend the num. ber of those rated specifically." SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY GALLATIN, In 1801, said: "In order to guard as far as possible against the value of goods being underrated in the invoices it would be eligible to lay specific duties on all such articles now paying duties ad valorem as may be susceptible of that alteration." SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY CRAWFORD, In 1817, under a resolution of Congress, made a thorough investigation of the subject, and reported: "It is certainly prudent to diminish, as far as practicable, the list of articles paying ad valorem duties." He recommended the transfer of over one hundred articles from the ad valorem to the specific schedule. At the session of Congress, 1839-40, President Van Buren forwarded a message covering reports of the Secretary and the Comptroller of the Treasury, with opinions of Attorneys General Butler and Grundy, and letters from collectors of customs in all the principal ports pertaining to the practical operation, for about six years, of ad valorem duties. It was the unanimous judgment of these officers that the ad valorem system was "unequal, uncertain, unsafe, diverse in its construction, injurious to the revenue, open to unfair practices, and greatly expensive, from the number of persons required to execute it." JAMES BUCHANAN, In 1842, on the floor of the Senate, said: "I am not only opposed to any uniform scale of ad valorem duties, but to any and all ad valorem duties whatever, except where, from the nature of the article imported, it is not possible to subject it to a specific duty." WALTER FORWARD, Then Secretary of the Treasury, favored specific duties because of "the security of the revenue against evasions." DANIEL WEBSTER, In 1846, presenting, in his argument to the Senate, many instances of fraud under ad valorem duties, said: "It has been the experience of this Government always that the ad valem system is open to innumerable frauds. What is the case with England? In her notions favorable to free trade has she rushed madly into a scheme of ad valorem duties? Sir, the system of ad valorem duties is not free trade, but fraudulent trade." |