Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 19.djvu/62

* TARIFF. 42 TARIFF. measure for the time allayed the excitement in the South : but by the year 1842 it was seen that the linaneial consequences of the steadj' re- duction of the tariff were extremely serious, since the Government revenues had decreased to such an extent as to be less than the expenses, A new tariff was manifestly necessary. The majority in Congress passed a bill which continued the du- ties imposed by the tariff of 1833, and provided for the division of any surplus revenue among the States. This was vetoed by President Tyler as being a violation of the compromise reached in 1833. A revenue tariff was also vetoed, be- cause it contained the distribution clause, but on its being again passed, with this clause omitted, the President signed it (August 9, 1842). In 1846 a revenue tariff that eliminated altogether the principle of protection was passed, its aim being merely to provide an adequate reve- nue for the expenses of the Government. A still further reduction of duties was made by the tariff of 1857, which fixed them at the lowest figures showai by any tariff' since that of 1810. In 1861 the Republican Party passed the 'JMorrill Tariff,' intended primarily to protect American m.inufactures. Twice in the same year (August .5th and December 24th) the duties were still further increased, less for protection, how- ever, than in order to meet the expenses entailed by the Civil War. The problems that were injected into politics by the war, and by the conditions resulting from it, relegated the tariff question to the background for many years. During this period duties were raised with little opposition to an unprecedented level. After the close of the war other ques- tions still absorbed public attention, and it was not until 1880 that the tariff' again be- came an important issue. The Republicans in nominating General Garfield embodied in their platform a strong declaration in favor of maintaining a scale of duties that should continue to protect American industries against foreign competition. The Democrats began to urge the expediency of modifying a tariff which had been framed to meet the conditions of a time of war, and which, they claimed, was not merely hampering eonmierce, excluding the United States from the mai'kets of the world, but fostering monopolies by preventing healthful com- petition. They therefore declared for 'a tariif for revenue only,' which was afterwards explained as a tariff' that should give 'incidental protection,' In 1882 provision was made by Congress for the appointment of a commission to report upon the expediency of a reduction of the tariff. This re- duction became a question of pressing impor- tance, since the revenues of the Government had so far exceeded its expenses as to accumulate in the treasury a very large and increasing sur- plus, which threatened to disturb seriously the financial system of the country. The Tariff Com- mission made its report, and in accordance with its recommendations the act of 1882, a distinctly protectionist measure, was passed. In 1884, the House being Democratic, the bill known as the 'Morrison Horizontal Reduction Bill' for lower- ing the tariff was hotly debated, but by a com- bination between the Republicans and the Demo- cratic protectionists led by INIr. Randall, of Pennsylvania, it was defeated. The campaign nf that year turned to some extent upon the tariff question, for the Democratic platform, while evading the question of protection, demanded a real reduction of tariff' duties, as well as legisla- tion to check the aggression of great corpora- tions. The election of ilr. Cleveland appeared to show that the cry of "free trade' had ceased to alarm the great body of voters, and that they were willing to hear argument upon the questions at issue. The new President's first message (December 16, 1885) recommended a reduction of the tariff', and his message in December, 1887, was devoted exclusively to this topic. In it he stated that the surplus in the treasurv was near- ly .$140,000,000, demanded as a remedy the im- mediate abolition of the duties upon wool and other raw materials, and characterized the exist- ing tariff' laws as "vicious, ineqiiitable, and il- logical." In accordance with the views of this message a new tariff' measure, the 'Mills Bill,' removing the duty on wool, and aiming at an estimated annual reduction of revenue of fully $50,000,000. passed the House. The Republican Senate offered a substitute repealing the tax upon tobacco and reducing the duty on sugar one-half, thus securing an estimated reduction of $65,000,000 per annum. Neither bill became a law. The defeat of the Democrats in the Presiden- tial election of 1888 was possibly due to the prominence of the tariff' question, but as the majority of the popular vote was on their side, it was seen that a reform or, at any rate, a revision of the tariff was .sooner or later in- evitable. Therefore, the Fifty-second Congress took up the matter in earnest, with the result that the famous McKinlej* Bill passed both Houses of Congress and was signed by President Harrison (September, 1890). By its provisions the annual reduction of revenue was estimated to be some $66,000,000, of which $6,000,000 was due to a reduction of internal revenue taxes, chiefly on tobacco. A bount.v was provided to comi>ensate ])roducers of ra- sugar for the aboli- tion of the dut}' on that conunodity. One very important feature of the McKinley Act was the section added through the influence of James G. Blaine, then Secretary of State, and known as the reciprocity section. This provided that whenever the President shall be satisfied that the Government of any country producing and exporting sugars, molasses, cof- fee, tea, and hides, or any svich articles, imposes duties upon products of the United States which in view of the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, etc.. into the United States, he may deem to be reciprocallv unequal and unreason- able, he sliall have the power to suspend by proclamation the free introduction into the United States of such sugars, etc, from the country in question. See Customs Duties; Reciprocity. On the return of the Democratic Party to power in 1893, an effort was made to carry out its promise of tariff reform. A bill framed by William L, Wilson passed the House, and after much amendment by the Senate became a law without the President's signature. August 27, 1894. It made .a considerable reduction in many duties, admitted wool free, and provided for an income tax. It was still in the main, liowever, a protective measure. As a revenue law this act was a failure, partly because the