THE TARIFF DEBATE. 97 hemp duty as encouraging agriculture. Burke, of South Carolina, however, made the following statement in regard to South Carolina and Georgia: "The staple products of that part of the Union are hardly worth cultivation, on account of their fall in price; the planters are, therefore, disposed to pursue [procure?] some other. The lands are certainly well adapted to the growth of hemp, and he had no doubt but its culture could be practised with attention. Cotton is likewise in contemplation among them, and if good seeds could be procured, he hoped it might succeed. But the low, strong rice lands would produce hemp in abundance many thousand tons even this year, if it were not so late in the season. He liked the idea of putting a low duty now [on hemp], and encouraging it against the time when a supply might be had of our own cultiva tion." Accordingly the duty was fixed at first the same as for cordage, but, as finally passed, the rates were raised to 90 cents on cordage and 60 cents. on hemp, though the duty on the latter did not go into effect until January 1, 1791.† The duties on cordage and hemp elicited a long debate. It was originally proposed to tax cordage only. Some objection was made to taxing articles used in shipbuilding, but it seemed advisable to encourage the cordage industry in order to render the country independent of the foreign supply. Accordingly a duty of 50 cents per hundred weight was voted. Madison then said that if it were politic to tax cordage to encourage the rope-makers, then the production of hemp, the raw material of cordage, should also be encouraged. The New England members opposed duty was obtained for nails, spikes, the hemp duty altogether and were not in favor of a high duty on cordage, if thereby the shipbuilding industry would be injured. The members from eastern Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina supported the * Ibid, p. 147. Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 46-47. Annals of Congress, vol. i., p. 149 et seq. The New England members and those from eastern Pennsylvania united for mutual advantage in taxing manufactures of iron; a protective tacks and beads (which at this time were manufactured by New England farmers in their homes during the long winter nights); preferential duties were laid on paper and leather * Annals, p. 155; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., p. 37. Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 47-48. Annals of Congress, vol. i., pp. 156-157; Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. i., p. 499. 98 SECTIONAL DIFFERENCES. manufactures;* wool and cotton cards and salt were taxed, though to the inclusion of the last article the agricultural members offered determined opposition on the plea that the necessities of life for people and for cattle should not be taxed, and coal was taxed 3 cents per bushel, at the suggestion of a Representative from Virginia, which State was then yielding large quantities of bituminous coal.† Finally the committee succeeded in getting its report ready for submission to Congress. According to the system of procedure at that time, the whole ground must be gone over again. The debates in Congress were merely a repetition of those in the committee, the members from the different sections attacking or defending the various schedules according as they were deemed to harm or benefit their respective constituents. Moreover, the feeling of resentment against England was strong and the desire to keep out her manufactures clearly manifest. The South complained that a high protective tariff on certain articles would not benefit *On sole and upper leather, leather manufactures and gloves of that material the rate was 71⁄2 per cent. Boots paid 50 cents and shoes 7 cents per pair. Raw hides and skins were admitted free. Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. i., p. 463. Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 99-100; Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 48-50; Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. ii., p. 17; Thompson, History of Protective Tariff Laws, p. 62. F. W. Taussig, Tariff History of the United States, p. 15 (ed. 1910). 66 66 them, while the New England members were equally wrought up by the duty on molasses. George Thatcher, of Massachusetts, said the tax of 6 cents would be a great hardship to New England. Suppose," said he, a member from Massachusetts was to impose an impost on negroes, what would you hear from the Southern gentlemen if fifty dollars was the sum to be laid? And yet this is not more than the proportion laid upon molasses. If the pernicious effects of New England rum have been greatly lamented, what can be urged for negro slavery? "'* Later he remarked that, "if the support and good will of 400,000 citizens are worthy of cultivation, the House will decide the present question with candor and moderation," this broad hint being probably the first recorded threat of secession after the adoption of the Constitution. Boudinot rebuked Thatcher by saying: "I have so high an idea of the good sense and patriotism of the citizens of Massachusetts that I never can be persuaded that if this House, on principle, think it expedient to lay a duty on any particular article, the inhabitants of that State will rise in opposition to the measure. I believe them to be as well affected toward the Government as any other part of the United States." + The effort to reduce the molasses duty was defeated, but later the rate was reduced to 5 cents per gallon and a drawback of 3 cents was voted on *Annals of Congress, vol. i., pp. 215-216. Ibid, vol. i., p. 216. Ibid, p. 217. 則 PROPOSAL TO TAX IMPORTED SLAVES. every gallon of rum exported. Tucker then made a long speech advocating a general reduction and proposing that, as a starter, the tax on distilled spirits be reduced by 6 cents per gallon.* A grave and serious debate ensued, during which Ames warned the House that, if an unpopular revenue act were passed, the people would be against the new government.† After Madison had spoken in a conciliatory tone, the motion to reduce the duty was rejected by a vote of 26 to 19.‡ Parker, of Virginia, now proposed that a duty of $10 apiece be laid on all negroes imported into the country. He argued that the practice of slavery was nefarious and should be prohibited, and that a tax might act as a deterrent to an "irrational and inhuman" traffic.|| In reply, Jackson, of Georgia, said that because Virginia had all the slaves she needed, she should not act selfishly in the matter but allow the other States to secure the necessary supply of slaves before an impost were laid. He said the negroes were better situated in slavery, since they would not work. when free. He cited Maryland, where the slaves had been set free and had turned " pick-pockets and petty larceny villains."§ Madison said: * Ibid, vol. i., pp. 291-296; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., pp. 57-59. † Annals, p. 297; Benton, pp. 59–61. 51-53. || Annals, vol. i., p. 336; Benton, p. 73; Gay, Life of Madison, p. 135. § Annals, p. 336. 99 "It is to be hoped that by expressing a national disapprobation of this trade we may destroy it, * * It is as much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina as of any in the Union. Every addition they receive to their number of slaves tends to weaken and render them less capable of self-defense. It is a necessary duty of the general government to protect every part of the empire against danger, as well internal as external. Everything, therefore, which tends to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet, if it involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general administration of the government." * Burke saw little difference between laying a specific duty of $10 on slaves and collecting a five per cent. duty on them as merchandise, the amount of revenue being practically the same.t After some debate, Parker withdrew his motion, and henceforth the provision in the Constitution laying a tax of $10 on importing slaves remained a dead letter. A free trade policy was established so far as slaves were concerned, until the traffic was supposed to cease by Constitutional limitation in 1808. On May 15 the bill was recommitted to the Committee of the Whole, whereupon Madison moved that the operation of the law be limited to a certain 100 PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF ACT. time. An animated debate followed, but the next day the time was fixed as the end of the session of Congress to be held next after June 1, 1796.* The bill was then passed (41 to 8) and sent to the Senate. No reports of these debates of the Senate have been preserved,† but on June 11 the bill was returned to the House with numerous amendments. These differences were adjusted, the bill was passed again, and by the signature of President Washington became law July 4, 1789.|| By its terms specific duties were levied on thirty-six enumerated articles: 15 per cent. ad valorem on carriages; 10 per cent. on seven articles; 72 per cent. on sixteen articles; and 5 per cent. on all other goods save seventeen articles, which constituted the first free list. On Jamaica proof spirits the duty was 10 cents per gallon; on all other spirits 8 cents; on molasses 21⁄2 cents; on cocoa 1 cent per pound; on coffee 212 cents; on Madeira wine 18 cents per gallon; on other wine 10 cents per gallon. The articles over which controversies arose were taxed as fol *Annals, pp. 344-365; Benton, Abridgment, pp. 77-84. Senator Maclay's journal is the best source of information, though he is very severe in his criticisms of those with whom he differed. Stanwood gives copious extracts in his Tariff Con troversies, vol. i., pp. 55-58. Discussions on the amendments are in Annals of Congress, vol. i., pp. 585–590. || United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. i., p. 24; Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, 1st session, vol. ii., pp. 2129-2132; Acts of Congress, Jst Congress, 1st session, chap. ii.; Bolles, Financial History, pp. 75-76; McMaster, vol. i., p. 549. lows: malt 10 cents per bushel; brown sugar 1 cent a pound; loaf sugar 3 cents a pound; tallow candles 2 cents; untarred cordage and yarn 90 cents per hundredweight (112 pounds); steel 56 cents per hundredweight; coal 2 cents a bushel; nails and spikes 1 cent a pound; and salt 6 cents a bushel. A duty of 6 cents was laid on Bohea tea coming direct from China or India in vessels owned wholly by Americans, but 8 cents if the tea came from other countries, and 15 cents if the vessels were owned by foreigners. On glass, china, stone and earthenware, lace, paint, gunpowder, buckles, and gold and silver lace the rate was 10 per cent. ad valorem; on metal wares, iron castings, hats, millinery and ready-made clothing, gloves and leather, paper, cabinet ware and buttons, the rate was 72 per cent.; the free list included old metal, wool, cotton, dyestuffs, hides and fur, and saltpetre. On hemp the duty was 75 cents per hundredweight, and on cotton three cents per pound, to become operative on December 1, 1790.* Upon imported goods exported within a year after the payment of duty a drawback of the full duty, less 1 per cent., was allowed; and on each quintal of dried fish, barrel of pickled fish, and barrel of salted meat exported a *Thus, as Hammond says, the Southern agriculturists were among the first to receive the benefits of the protective system.-M. B. Hammond, The Cotton Industry, an Essay in American Economic History, in Publications of the Amer ican Economic Association, N. S. no. i. (1897), p. 20. DEBATE ON TONNAGE DUTY. bounty of 5 cents was allowed in lieu of a drawback. If goods were imported in vessels wholly owned by Americans, a discount of 10 per cent. was allowed.* During the discussion on the tariff a protracted debate occurred respecting a tonnage duty discriminating against the shipping from countries with which the United States was not in alliance, but the measure was separated from the revenue bill and passed later. The New England members joined those from the Middle States in advocating a tonnage duty, claiming that the distress of the East was due to the lack of such an impost, and that a protective tariff would give life to the ship-building industry, then practically dead. The southern mem * Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 5860; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 81-82. As to the protective features of the bill, see Stanwood, p. 60 et seq.; Bolles, Financial History, p. 78; Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. i., p. 631; vol. ii., p. 16; Hill, First Stages of the Tariff Policy, p. 112; W. G. Sumner, Protection in the United States, p. 24; Condy Raguet, Principles of Free Trade, p. 9; H. C. Adams, Taxation in the United States, p. 26 et scq.; F. W. Taussig, Tariff History of the United States, p. 14 (ed. 1910). On the tariff in general, see also F. W. Taussig, State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff, pp. 1-107; W. Hill, Protective Purpose of the Tariff Act of 1789, in Journal of Political Economy, vol. ii., pp. 54-77; O. L. Elliott, The Tariff Controversy in the United States, 17891833, in Leland Stanford Jr. University Monographs in History and Economics, No. i., pp. 6792; Ugo Rabbeno, The American Commercial Policy, pp. 111-145; Coman, Industrial History of the United States, pp. 139-144; Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. ii., p. 179 et seq. See Annals of Congress, vol. i., pp. 176, 233, 252, 272. These are abridged considerably in Benton, p. 53 et seq. 101 bers, on the other hand, claimed that a tonnage duty would ruin the South, as many of the vessels carrying southern produce was foreign.* The duty would increase the freightage, and the crops of the planters would rot on the ground on of account of prohibitive freight rates. Nevertheless, the duty was laid-6 cents on vessels built and owned in the United States, 30 cents on vessels built but not owned in the United States, as well as on vessels belonging to nations having treaties with the United States, and 50 cents on all others.† But when it came to discriminating against vessels of foreign nations who refused to enter into treaty alliance with the United States, another heated discussion arose. Madison urged that allied nations should be given the preference, but as this excluded Great Britain, the members from New England, New York and Charleston strongly opposed Madison's views. Madison believed that we had a right to make such discrimination and that by favoring such nations as had treaties of commercial reciprocity with us. we not only strengthened the ties already formed abroad, but would be in Annals of Congress, vol. i., pp. 179-180, 187188; Gay, Life of Madison, p. 134; Katharine Coman, Industrial History of the United States, p. 131. † Act July 20, 1789, 1st Congress, 1st session, chap. iii.; Bolles, Financial History, p. 76; Annals of Congress, vol. ii., p. 2132; McMaster, vol. i., pp. 549-552; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 83-84. Annals of Congress, vol. i., p. 181 et seq.: Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., p. 48 et seq. |