Nebraska.-The Democrats of Nebraska heartily indorse the views of President Cleveland on this issue, which were so admirably expressed in his message to the Fiftieth Congress, and they urge upon the National Democracy about to assemble in St. Louis a similar expression from its councils.

Nevada. We denounce the present tariff system. *** We declare that taxation should be limited to the requirements of government, and the burden of taxation should rest upon those who use luxuries rather than upon those who use only the necessaries of life.

New Hampshire.-They (the Democracy of New Hampshire) fully approve of the President's message to Congress on the subject of tariff reform and the reduction of war taxes to the end that the labor of the country be relieved of onerous and unnecessary burdens.

New Jersey.-It (the Democracy of New Jersey) urges upon Representatives of the Democratic party in Congress * a reduction of the redundant revenue

*

*

of the Government and the revision of the tariff, with a due regard for the interests of the agricultural and manufacturing industries and of labor and capital to be affected thereby.

New York.-The allegiance and adherence of the State Democracy *

are hereby again declared with an explicit approval of the doctrines affirmed in the last annual message of the President to Congress.

Ohio.-We approve the Mills Tariff bill as the practical expression of the Demo. cratic party.

Oregon-We most earnestly and unqualifiedly indorse the policy of tariff revision and reduction of the surplus revenue to the needs of the Government economically administered, as set forth in the President's last annual message to Congress. We believe * * that unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation and oppression, and that the public revenue should, as far as possible, be derived from taxes levied upon the luxuries rather than the necessities of life.

*

.*

*

Pennsylvania. We give our most hearty and emphatic indorsement to the recommendations of President Cleveland's last annual message to Congress and * we recommend to Congress the prompt adoption of the RevenueReform bill reported from the Committee of Ways and Means. Rhode Island-Reduction of taxation is an imperative duty, and should be made first upon those articles which can be classed as necessaries to the whole people, men, women and children.

South Carolina-The message of the President advocating reduction in revenue is indorsed as a statesmanlike and practical way in which to relieve the overburdened people without injury to the laborer or damage to capital.

Tennessee -The views of the President in his message to Congress in regard to the tariff are pure Jeffersonian Democracy and sound statesmanship, therefore we heartily indorse his views as expressed in said message.

*

*

*

Texas. We indorse the views expressed by Grover Cleveland, our President, in his last annual message on the subject of the tariff. We indorse the tariff bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, commonly known as the Mills Tariff bill.

Vermont. We favor such a revision of the tariff bill as will reduce taxation to the needs of the Government economically administered, and will especially relieve the poor and benefit all by freeing from tax the necessaries of life and taxing as lightly as practicable other articles most commonly consumed or used, and raw materials.

Virginia. The simple and plain duty which is due to the people is, in the language of President Cleveland, "to reduce taxation to the necessary expenses of an economical operation of the Government, and to restore to the business of the country the money which we hold in the Treasury through the perversion of governmental powers."

Wisconsin.-We demand

*

*

*

that taxation be reduced in strict con

formity to the principles laid down by President Cleveland in his message to the Fiftieth Congress.

CHAPTER XL.

THE HISTORY OF TARIFF CHANGES.

A COMPLETE ACCOUNT OF AMERICAN TARIFF LEGISLATION, FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PASSAGE

OF THE MILLS BILL BY THE HOUSE.

The first tariff act was passed on the 4th of July, 1789; the last one on the 3d of March, 1883. Including these two there have been fifty-five tariff acts passed in ninety-nine years. Most of them did not make radical changes in the tariff. The tariffs usually considered most important by historians were passed as follows, and they have all been named, also, as follows:

The general effects of these various tariffs, and of the modifications made in them between times, may be traced in the following table, which shows the average rate of tax paid on all taxed imports for each year since 1791. There was always a free list—always absolute free trade in many things-but here are the average rates for the year on the things actually taxed:

The reader will be surprised to observe that the highest average rate was in 1813 and the lowest in 1815, although there intervened no important change in the law, and that the rate for 1813 was ten times as high as for 1815. Washington never lived to see the tariff average as high as 20 per cent.-less than half the rate left by the Mills bill-though the year before he died, 1798, shaved it pretty close. It was not until 1813, when the Government was 24 years old, and was in the midst of war, that the average rate reached the point proposed in the Mills bill. It has passed that point in only 27 of the 98 years covered by the table, and 16 of these have been since 1861, when the Morrill bill passed.

The average rate collected in 1887 has been exceeded but thirteen times in our history, and eight of these were before the war. The highest series of rates collected for any term of seven years was from 1824 to 1830, inclusive. It actually averaged for the seven years more than 52 per cent. Numerous other interesting comparisons will occur to the student.

THE RATES ON GOODS IN COMMON USE.

So much for the general average rate collected on all dutiable goods. Now let us tabulate as best we can briefly the history of the rates enacted on certain selected articles of common use. This is a difficult task, for the reason that there are two kinds of tariff taxes-specific and ad valorem. A specific tax or duty is so much on the pound, yard, gallon, barrel or bushel, etc. An ad valorem duty is so much on the 'dollar's worth. How can we compare these? How can we compare a tax of ten cents a yard, under one tariff, with a tax of twenty per cent, on the cost price, under another tariff? If we knew the foreign cost of the cloth taxed ten cents a yard we could do it, but it is only within recent years that the Government has told us that, or even instructed its custom-house officers to find it out.

To confuse matters still more, the present tariff often levies both kinds of duties on the same article. Thus on one of the six classes into which women's and children's dress goods are divided, the tax is six cents a square yard (specific) and 35 per cent. (ad valorem). But this is not the oddest nor most confusing feature about it, for if the goods weigh over four ounces per square yard the tax is levied in a still different way, and instead of six or eight cents a yard, it is 50 cents a pound, plus the 35 per cent. If past tariff's were as intricate as the present one our task would indeed be hopeless.

But in all tariffs there are clauses stating what the tax shall be on all articles of the several great classes "not otherwise provided for" (n. o. p.). Into these n. o. p. clauses are dumped the articles of each great class which the tax layers couldn't think of, or were afraid they couldn't with sufficient accuracy describe in their proper places. The taxes they laid on these were of necessity simple and usually ad valorem, and furnish a key to the mind of the legislator. If he laid a tax of 20 per cent. on cottons “n. o. p." you may well guess that he thought he was putting about an average of 20 per cent. on the cottons he did provide for. The following table occasionally makes this use of the n. o. p. classes, but always with the letters attached:

RATES OF DUTY LEVIED ON ARTICLES OF NECESSITY UNDER ALL TARIFFS SINCE 1791.

The figures marked with a * are the average rates collected on the next year's imports. All the others are at the rates embodied in the law.

20

free 30

7% free 10 free

5

30

7%

7% 10

12% 15 15

12% 15 15 12% 20

free 15

1712 17 15

35 30

22%

24 24

2c. a ib.

and

20 per ct.

12% 10

7% 15

12 20

10 10

17142

Wood, manufactured, n. o. p.

Iron manufac-¡ tures, n. o. p.

tures, n. o. p. Steel manufac

Flax manufac

tures, n. o. p.

Glass, n. o. p.

Earthenware.

30 30

The history of the wool tariff needs to be elaborated a little. Down to 1824 wool was free and cotton was taxed. Then wool was divided into two classes, according to value, and if valued at less than ten cents a pound the tax was 15 per cent., otherwise 20, and afterwards 30. In 1828 the tax on high grade wool was enormously increased. For eight years it remained at 4 cents a pound and 40 per cent., and then the compromise tariff began to reduce it a little. The maximum figures given from 1828 to 1842 are the highest that could possibly be collected under the complex law, and doubtless far higher than the average actually collected, though that was probably 50 per cent. In 1832 low grade wool was again made free, and has never since been heavily taxed. Wool is now (since 1867) divided into three classes, "clothing," "combing" and "carpet," and they paid last year 55 per cent., 43 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively.

THE PRESENT RATE WOULD ONCE HAVE BEEN THOUGHT ROBBERY.

The first tariff was the lightest. It was gradually raised until the war of 1812 broke out, and then it was doubled at a stroke. The genuine high protective system was adopted in 1816, under the influence of Calhoun, who bitterly regretted it. Webster was a free trader when the tariff was raised in 1824, but faced about and helped to raise it again in 1828 This was called the Tariff of Abominations, because the free traders tried to kill it by loading it down with abominations, but to their

great surprise it passed with all its sins upon it. It almost led to war, and did lead to the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which proposed a gradual horizontal reduction In 1842 the Whigs raised the tariff; in 1846 the Democrats reduced it; in 1857 the new Republican party had got control of the lower house and with Democratic help reduced the tariff again, to the lowest point reached since 1816. Four years later the Republicans adopted the Morrill, or War Tariff, and gradually raised it until 1867; its extremest features being adopted after the war was over. In 1872 they passed a horizontal reduction of 10 per cent., which they repealed two years later.

In 1882 they appointed a Tariff Commission, and it recommended a reduction which would have left the average rate about 30 per cent. on dutiable goods. On the 3d of March, 1883, they passed a law which reduced some duties and raised others, among them, as will be seen by the table, those on glass and earthenware, but leaving the general average about the same. All subsequent reduction bills have failed to pass the lower house until Saturday, July 21, 1888, when the Mills bill placing wool, lumber and some other articles on the free list, and calculated to reduce the average rate on dutiable imports to 42.49 per cent., was passed by a vote of 162 to 149.