Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 19.djvu/61

* TARIFF. 41 TARIFF. incidentally increasing somewhat the rates. Pro- tectionist sentiment increased alter 1881 and by 18'J2, when many of the commercial treaties negotiated at an earlier period expired, the coun- try was readj' for an out-and-out protectionist tariff, including not only high duties on agricul- tural products and manufactures, but also mod- erate bounties to producers of silk, fla.x, and hemp. At this time also the policy of providing maximum and minimum duties (see Reciproc- ity) was introduced. Since 1892 there has been no perceptible abatement in the demand for protection in France, and while French duties are moderate in comparison with those of the United States, she must be included among protectionist countries. The tarifT policy of the States now forming the German Empire first assumed definite form in the German Zullrcrcin (q.v.). The importance of this early federation for tariff purposes in preparing the way for the German Empire is gen- erally conceded. From the point of view of tariff history it is interesting because it en- abled Prussia, which was inclined toward free trade during this period, to dominate the tariff policies of her smaller neighbors. A treat.v ne- gotiated with Austria in 1853 reduced the duties on trade between that country and the Zoll- verein and the even more liberal treaty with France, already referred to, secured the same result for trade with that country in 1805. On the eve of the Franco-Prussian War the tariff of the Zollrcrein was practically a tariff for reve- nue onlv. After the war a reaction toward protection set in. This is clearly indicated in the tariff adopted in 1879, by which the duties on both agricultural and manufactured articles were increased. The policy continued to be only moderatel.v protective until 1902, when an act was passed which made very substantial concessions to the advocates of protection to agricultural interests. Among the most notable changes were an increase in the duties on grains (the duty on wheat was raised from 32 cents per cwt. to 90 cents) and on draught animals (the dutv on horses valued at $250 or less was raised from $2.50 to $22.50). The changes in the tariff policies of France and Germany that have been described have been paralleled pretty closely in the other countries of Continental Europe. England's example and other influences caused a movement in favor of free trade to extend all over Europe in the decade from 18(50 to 1870. This was followed by a reaction toward protection in the more impor- tant countries, which has gained in volume until in Germany and Russia, at least, the movement is comparable with the protectionist movement in the United States. Outside of Europe England's free trade ex- ample has been followed onl.v by two or three of her own dependencies (e.g. India). Protective tariffs are found in Canada, in the Australian colonies, and in Cape Colon.v, and are well-nigh universal among the independent sovereignties. No country has. however, gone further in this direction than the United States. History of Tariff Legislation in the United States. The earliest tariff in the his- tory of the United States was that approved July 4, 1789. It is interesting to note that the preamble of the act establishing it states that one of its objects is "the encouragement and pro- tection of manufactures," at this early period laying down a principle afterwards adopted as the tenet of a political party. In 1817, at the beginning of President Monroe's administration. Congress abolished the internal taxes that had been made necessary by the cost of the War of 1812, and in his message the President recom- mended the imposition of a protective tariff pure and simple. A temporary protective duty had in 1816 been laid upon cottons and woolens, and in 1818 this was continued for a period of eight years. The ri.se of the party of Loose Construc- tion, headed by Henry Clay, was favorable to the principle of protection, as the Strict Constructionists held that Congress could im- pose a tariff" onlj' for revenue. In 1819 a pro- tective tariff bill passed the Lower House, but was rejected by the Senate. The election as Speaker, in 1820, of John W. Taylor, of New York, a declared high-tariff man, gave great en- couragement to the Eastern manufacturers, and indicates the increasing influence of the protec- tionists, although in 1822 the Strict Construc- tionists were able again to defeat bills embodying the protective principle. In 1824, however, the friends of that principle secured a working ma- jority in Congress, and after a prolonged debate adopted a bill whose essential principle was the exclusion from the American market of such foreign goods as competed with those manufac- tured in the United States. In 1S27 a convention held at Harrisburg, Pa. (July 30th), discussed at length the principle of protection. Only four of the slave States sent delegates. The result of the convention was a petition to Congress praying for an increase of duties on certain articles then manufactured in the United States, a request which the Secretary of the Treasury made prominent in his report of the following December. B.v this time a strong party had been founded to support the protective system, or the 'American system,' as it was popu- larly called. The famous 'Tariff of 1828,' adopted by Congress after a debate of six weeks, was the immediate result of this party's propaganda. This went further than any act had previously done in the direction of prohibitive duties. The chief articles on which protective duties were laid were woolen and cotton fabrics. At that time the value of the cotton goods annually im- ported from Great Britain was fully $8,000,000, and that of woolen goods about the same. The exports to Great Britain, on the other -hand, of rice, raw cotton, and tobacco (the chief prod- ucts of the South), reached the sum of $24,000,- 000 per annum. The Southern producers natu- rally feared that if the United States should by a high tariff practically prohibit the importation of a large proportion of British goods, retalia- tory measures might lead to a diminution of the Southern exports to Great Britain. It was dis- satisfaction with the tariff" that led to the fa- mous nullification movement in the South in 1832, in which year Congress, while modifying the act of 1828. distinctly recognized and re- tained the protective principle. On March 3. 1833, the so-called Compromise Tariff, introduced by Henry Clay, was passed. It provided for the gradual reduction of the ex- isting tariff until 1842, after which year the duties on all goods were to be 20 per cent. Th's