Joint resolution raising all duties 50 per cent. for sixty days, afterwards extended to ninety days..........April 29, 1864 General revision of tariff, increasing duties passed... ......June 30, 1864 Bill passed increasing tariff rates, March 3, 1865, and amended..July 28, 1866 Transportation in bond of goods destined for Canada or Mexico, through the United States, provided for by act of July 28, 1866 Convention of woollen manufacturers at Syracuse ask increased duties. They form an alliance with wool-growers, and arrange a tariff which becomes a law by act of...... ...March 2, 1867 Duty on copper and copper ore increased by act of... ...... Feb. 24, 1869 First law distinctly authorizing the appointment of special agents of the treasury in the customs service, passed May 12, 1870 Following a general debate on an act to reduce internal taxes, etc., a new tariff, retaining most of the protective features, becomes a law.... .July 14, 1870 Duties removed from tea and coffee after July 1, 1872, by act of..May 1, 1872 General act passed reducing duties on imports and internal taxes..June 6, 1872 All provision moieties to informers repealed, and the proceeds of all fines, penalties, and forfeitures to be paid into the treasury, by act of... .June 22, 1874 Tariff law amended by act of Congress Feb. 8, 1875 Salts and sulphate of quinine put on the free-list.... .July 1, 1879 Act creating a tariff commission of nine civilians appointed by the President to visit different sections of the country in the interest of tariff revision and report May 15, 1882 Tariff commission, consisting of John L. Hayes, president, Henry W. Oliver, Jr., Austin M. Garland, Jacob Ambler, Robert P. Porter, John W. H. Underwood, Duncan F. Kenner, Alexander R. Boet'er, and William H. McMahon, organizes at the Ebbitt House, Washington, D. C., al duty of 10 per cent. on goods from places west of the Cape of Good Hope), May 4, and amended........Dec. 23, 1882 Senate reports a tariff bill which is called up for consideration, Jan. 10; House bill reported by ways and means committee, Jan. 16; both bills discussed and amended for several weeks; a conference committee meets, Feb. 28; after some resignations and reappointments of members, reports, March 2, accepted in the Senate, 12.30 A.M., March 3, by 32 to 31 votes, and in the House at 5.30 P.M., March 3, by 152 to 116 votes, and signed by the President before adjournment, which was after midnight..March 3, 1883 A bill "to reduce import duties and war-tariff taxes," introduced by Mr. Morrison, is reported in the House, March 11, and defeated by vote of 159 to 155 April 15, 1884 A bill to reduce tariff taxes, introduced by Mr. Morrison, is lost by vote of the House, 157 to 140........June 17, 1886 Mills bill, a measure to reduce taxation and simplify the laws in relation to the collection of revenue," introduced in the House by Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, chairman of the ways and means mittee... com . April 2, 1888 Mills bill is taken up for discussion, April 17, and debated until July 19, and passes the House by vote of 149 to 14 July 21, 1888 [Referred in the Senate to the finance committee, by whom a substitute was prepared, and failed to become a law.] A bill" to equalize duties upon imports and to reduce the revenue of the gov ernment," introduced by William McKinley. Jr., of Ohio..... . April 16, 1890 McKinley Customs Administration act approved...... ....June 10, 1890 McKinley tariff bill passes the House, May 21; referred to Senate committee on finance, May 23; reported to the Senate with amendments, June 18; passes Senate with amendments, Sept. 10; reported by conference committee to House, Sept. 26; approved by the President. Oct. 1, and takes effect Oct. 6, 1890 Tariff (Wilson) bill made public Nov. 27, 1893 Internal revenue bill containing the in July 6, 1882 Report of tariff commission submitted to Congress and referred to ways and means committee...... .Dec. 4, 1882 Act passed repealing section 2510 of come-tax reported to the House the Revised Statutes (levying an addition Jan. 24, 1894 Tariff bill with income tax attached passes the House, 204 to 140.. Feb. 1, 1894 Senate passes tariff bill, 39 yeas (thirtyseven Democrats, two Populists), 34 nays (thirty-one Republicans, two Populists, one Democrat, D. B. Hill)....July 3, 1894 Tariff bill received in the House with 633 Senate amendments; rates increased July 5, 1894 House disagreeing, a conference committee is appointed; the Senate compels the House to adopt its amendments Aug. 13, 1894 Bill sent to the President Aug. 17, 1894 Becomes a law without his signature Aug. 27, 1894 Chairman Dingley, of the committee on ways and means, introduces new tariff bill... .....Dec. 7, 1896 Measure reported from committee on ways and means...... . March 19, 1897 Bill passes the House, 205 ayes to 122 nays, twenty-seven not voting March 31, 1897 Bill passes the Senate with about 870 amendments, 38 ayes, 28 nays, twentythree not voting... ..July 7, 1897 House non-concurred in Senate amendments; conference committee reported favorably on majority of Senate amendments; report agreed to; and act approved by the President....July 24, 1897 TARIFF LEGISLATION Tariff Legislation. The question of tariffs in the United States has been a disputed point since the very formation of the nation. The overthrow of one political party has almost invariably been followed by a revision of the tariff. Gradually through all these changes the two great national parties have come to have a rather settled policy in regard to the tariff. The history of the tariff struggle in the United States is here given. 1819 came an attempted tariff measure in 1820. By 1824 the movement towards higher protection showed itself in the act of May 22, in which the average rate was 37 per cent. Woollen goods, cotton goods, and iron were main subjects of debate from the early stages of the controversy. The tariff of 1824 was protectionist, but in 1828 a tariff was passed which, on account of its various eccentricities, received the name of the Tariff of Abominations. Opposition to this act was very bitter in the South, and led to the nullification movement. The law was modified in 1832, and further in 1833 by the compromise tariff promoted by Henry Clay. By this act duties were to be gradually reduced to 20 per cent. Parties had again crystallized; protection was a Whig doctrine, together with internal improve The question of raising a sufficient national revenue was one of the first and most important matters discussed by the Congress of 1789. The tariff, which was passed on July 4 of that year, was nominally protective. Specific duties. were placed on spirits and fermented liquors, sugar, coffee, tea, and some other articles, while the remaining mass of imports bore ad ralorem duties averaging about 81⁄2 per ments. See AMERICAN SYSTEM. cent. This tariff of 1789 was largely the work of Madison. Protection was not in the early years of the republic a party measure, or indeed a vital question. High protection was revived by the tariff of 1842, in which the duties averaged about 33 per cent. But in 1846 the Democrats passed the low Walker tariff, The effect of the restrictive actions of named after the Secretary of the TreasFrance and Great Britain in the Napole- ury, Robert J. Walker. The average rate onic régime and of the embargo, followed was about 25 per cent., and under this law by the War of 1812, was to make the the country continued until 1857, when, United States more dependent on itself with an overflowing revenue, the rate was for manufactures. Soon after the close of still further reduced to about 20 per cent. the war the tariff of April 27, 1816, was From 1846 to 1861, accordingly, there was adopted. The increase of manufacturing an approach to a revenue tariff. The interests was shown in the increasing Morrill tariff, named after the chairman duties, which in the case of cotton reached of the ways and means committee, was 25 per cent. Shortly after the panic of enacted in 1861, having a protection char acter; the Civil War broke out; expenses of government enormously increased; in 1862 a stringent internal revenue act was passed. As the war developed, all financial experiments were tried, taxes on incomes and corporation receipts, on manufactures, also loans, and inconvertible currency; in 1864 a tariff bill was enacted which accorded a high measure of protection and produced a large amount of revenue. From 1866 to 1872 the internalrevenue taxes were mainly abolished, but a movement towards reforming the tariff failed in 1867. In 1870 the duties on purely revenue articles were lowered, and in 1872 tea and coffee were admitted free, and the protective duties received a 10 per cent. "horizontal" reduction. Party lines were not drawn upon these measures, although the war tariffs had been passed by the Republicans. This 10 per cent. reduction was in 1875 revoked, but the tariff was not generally discussed, although reform bills were introduced in 1876 and 1878. In the campaign of 1880 the Republicans made some use of protection, and the Democratic candidate, GEN. WINFIELD SCOTT HANCOCK (q. v.), referred to it as a local issue. In 1882 the Republicans took up the matter seriously; a tariff commis. sion was appointed, and in 1883 an act was passed; this measure was distinctly protective; some reductions were made in wool, iron, etc., and the duty on steel rails was reduced from $28 to $17. Almost immediately the Democrats gained control of the House. The Morrison bill of 1884 proposed a horizontal" reduction of 20 per cent., with free iron ore, coal, and lumber. It was opposed by the Republicans and defeated, as 41 out of 192 Democrats antagonized it. Again in 1886 another low-tariff bill met the same fate, but the number of opposing Democrats had fallen to 26 out of 169; free wool, salt, and lumber were offered. In 1887 the protective contest entered on its last phase. The election of 1884 had not turned distinctively on the tariff; but in the December message of 1887 President Cleveland devoted his attention entirely to the surplus in the treasury and the cause of tariff reform (see CLEVELAND, GROVER). The following year the Democratic House passed the Mills bill, which provided for free lumber and wool, reduc tion on pig-iron, and abolition of specific duties on cottons. The Democrats were now practically united on this side, and only 4 out of 169 votes were recorded against the bill. It failed in the Republican Senate. The same year the election for President occurred, with Cleveland and Harrison as opposing champions of tariff reform and protection respectively. The tariff was the main issue, and the Republicans were successful. As Congress was also Republican a revision of the tariff laws was made, and this measure bore the name of the McKinley tariff, from the chairman of the ways and means committee. Of this act, passed October, 1890, the following features are to be noted. Under the influence largely, it is claimed, of Secretary Blaine, reciprocity provisions were inserted when the bill was before the Senate. By these provisions the President could by proclamation impose fixed duties on sugar, wool, tea, coffee, and hides from other countries, whenever the duties imposed by such countries on American products shall be deemed unjust. Duties were accordingly laid on imports from Venezuela, Haiti, and Colombia; reciprocity treaties were negotiated with Brazil, San Domingo, Cuba, and Porto Rico, Jamaica, Barbadoes, Trinidad, British Guiana, and sev eral States of Central America; also some reciprocity arrangements were made with Germany and France. Other important features were the remission of the duty on sugar, a general increase in wool and woollen goods, dress goods, knit goods, linen, plush, velvets, etc.; tin plates were protected; the tobacco tax was reduced; there was an increase on barley, eggs, potatoes, a decrease on some articles, and additions to the free list. On the whole the act was regarded as a high protective measure. It raised considerable Republican opposi tion, especially in the Northwest. A few weeks later the Republican party met a Waterloo in the elections throughout the country, and this result was ascribed to the tariff. In 1893 the Democrats, having regained possession of the executive and both branches of Congress, prepared to deal with the question. President Cleve land was elected in 1892 largely on this Among other provisions of the McKinley law, the following were especially noteworthy: issue, and the party platform had con- upon sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and demned the principle of protection. The hides, the product of or exported from such Wilson bill, framed by Chairman Wil- designated country. son, of the ways and means committee, and his associates, was presented to the House at the close of 1893, and provided for reduction of duties in some cases, and of some notable additions to the free list, including wool. On Feb. 1, 1894, it passed the House by a vote of 204 to 140. Sixteen Democrats voted against the bill. The Wilson bill failed to provide sufficient revenue. After the election of McKinley and a Republican Congress in 1896, a strong effort was at once made to pass another tariff measure, entitled the Dingley bill. This bill somewhat resembles the McKinley bill, although the duties proposed were not as excessive. The duty on wool was restored. The Dingley bill met with much opposition, but was passed at the close of July, 1897. This was chiefly due to Western Senators, who refused to aid the Republican tariff plans unless that party would support free-silver legislation. The Wilson tariff was chiefly noted for its free-wool (raw) provision, while one of the leading features of the McKinley law was its reciprocity clause, the text of which was as follows: Section 3. With a view to secure reciprocal trade with countries producing the following articles, and for this purpose, on and after July 1, 1892, when ever and so often as the President shall be satisfied that the government of any country producing and exporting sugars, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, raw and uncured, or any of such articles, impose duties or other exactions upon the agricultural or other products of the United States, which in view of the free introduc. tion of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides into the United States he may deem to be reciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he shall have the power, and it shall be his duty, to suspend, by proclamation to that effect the provisions of this act relating to the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, the production of such country, for such time as he shall deem just; and in such case and during such suspension duties shall be levied, collected, and paid A bounty of 2 cents per pound was authorized for all sugar grown within the United States, testing not less than 90° by the polariscope; and upon all sugars testing less than 90° and not less than 80°, a bounty of 14 cents per pound. It was estimated that this provision would cause an annual expenditure of $7,000,000, based upon the annual production of sugar at the time of the passage of the bill. All packages or boxes containing articles of foreign merchandise imported into the United States must be plainly marked or stamped with the name of the country in which the articles originated. When foreign raw materials have been made into finished products in this country and exported, 99 per cent. of the duties paid on such raw materials was refunded. All special taxes and licenses imposed upon the manufacture of tobacco, cigars, and snuff, and upon dealers in them, were abolished, thus reducing the tax on manufactured tobacco from about 8 cents per pound to about 4 cents per pound. This is the only important change made in the internal-revenue laws. On March 18, 1897, a bill to "provide revenue for the government and to encourage the industries of the United States" was introduced into the House of Representatives by Nelson Dingley, Jr., of Maine. The treasury had suffered since 1893 from yearly deficits, and the finances had been further deranged by the growing conviction that the currency system was not as perfect as it should be. Many believed the aggravating cause to be a want of a sufficient revenue, and the new tariff was framed to produce this revenue. By raising all existing duties to the rates collected under the law of 1890, and by subjecting to duties a large number of arti cles, raw materials of industry, imported free under the laws of 1890 and 1894, the framer of the measure estimated that the new scheme of duties would produce an annual revenue of $273,500,000, or nearly $50,000,000 more than had been obtained from customs in any one year since 1867. bounty-paying country. By Section 22 a The measure passed the House, almost discriminating duty of 10 per cent., in without debate, and the Senate finance addition to the duties imposed by law, committee prepared a bill of its own, as a was imposed on "all goods, wares, or substitute, differing in many important merchandise which shall be imported in particulars from the House measure. Af vessels not of the United States, or which, ter many conferences the two bodies came being the production or manufacture of to an agreement, and the bill received the any foreign country not contiguous to signature of the President on July 24, the United States, shall come into the 1897. This tariff is one of the most de- United States from such contiguous countailed and extensive ever framed by Con- try." This section was at first believed to gress. The first two sections enumerate have the unlooked-for effect of imposing 705 articles and classes, of which 463 were a discriminating duty on foreign goods subject to duty. Provision was made in brought into the United States through Section 3 for reciprocity agreements with Canada-a commerce of some importance. such nations or countries as would make The Attorney-General decided that such adequate concessions on the products and was not the effect. A further important manufactures of the United States; but provision was contained in Section 32 perthe list of foreign products on which re- mitting appraising officers, in determinduction of duty may be made by the ing the dutiable value of imported merUnited States was too limited to offer chandise, to take into consideration the much scope for reciprocal agreements. In wholesale price at which such or similar Section 5 the Secretary of the Treasury merchandise is sold or offered for sale in was directed to ascertain the net amount of any bounty, direct or indirect, paid by a foreign government on the exportation of any article or merchandise, which amount was to be added to the duty imposed on such articles or merchandise imported into the United States from the the United States. This permitted "home market value" to be considered where "foreign market value is in doubt." As the intention of the framers of the act was to go back to the law of 1890, a comparison is made with the rates imposed by that act: ARTICLES ON WHICH THE RATES OF DUTY WERE INCREASED over those of the act of OCT. 1, 1890. |