Chapter VIII (2)

On the 20th of December, 1860, Mr. Hunter, from the committee on finance, to whom was referred the tariff bill, reported it back with a recommendation that it be postponed until the 4th day of March following. This was, in effect, to reject the bill, as Congress terminated on that day. The committee on finance, and a majority of the Senate as then constituted, was opposed to the passage of the bill, but the secession movements, then openly threatened, soon changed the political complexion of the Senate, by the resignation of Senators on account of the secession of their states. On the 18th of January, 1861, Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania, moved to take up the bill, and, upon his motion, it was made a special order for the following Wednesday. On the 23rd of January it was referred to a committee of five members, consisting of Mr. Simmons, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Bigler, Mr. Fessenden, and Mr. Gwin. This was done on the same day when the committees of the Senate were reorganized on account of the withdrawal of Senators. The special committee appointed by the Vice President was friendly to the bill. Then for the first time it became possible to secure favorable action in the Senate. Many amendments were proposed and adopted by the Senate, but they did not materially affect the general principles upon which the bill was founded. It passed the Senate with these amendments by the decided vote of 25 yeas to 14 nays. All of the amendments of the Senate but one were promptly agreed to by the House, and a conference between the two Houses was ordered. Messrs. Simmons, Bigler and Hunter were the managers on the part of the Senate and Messrs. Sherman, Phelps and Moorhead on the part of the House.

On the 27th day of February, five days before the close of the session, the conferees reported to the Senate their agreement and the report of the committee was adopted without objection or division of that body, and also by the House of Representatives, and the bill was signed by President Buchanan.

This law, passed in the throes of a revolution, and only possible as the result of the withdrawal of Senators to engage in the war of secession, met all the expectations of its friends. It was fair, just and conservative, and would, in peaceful times, yield about $50,000,000 a year, the amount of national expenditures in 1860, and, at the same time, protect and strengthen all existing home industries, and lay the foundation for great increase in production. It was destined, however, to begin its existence at a period of revolution. The secession of eleven states precipitated the war, involving enormous expenditures, in the face of which all revenue laws were inadequate and powerless. The credit of the government, its resources and capacity for taxation, had to be appealed to. Resort was had to every possible mode of taxation that could be devised by the ingenuity of man, to supply the requirements of the war, and to maintain the public credit. The Morrill tariff act was, therefore, greatly modified by subsequent laws, the duties doubled and in some cases trebled. Internal taxes, yielding twofold the amount collected from customs, were levied, and cheerfully paid, and duties on imported goods were quickly increased. The details of this act became the victim of the war, but the general principles upon which it was founded, the application of specific duties where possible, and the careful protection extended to the products of the soil and the mine, as well as of the workshop, have been maintained to a greater or less extent until the present time.

I have participated in framing many tariff bills, but have never succeeded in securing one that I entirely approved. The Morrill tariff bill came nearer than any other to meeting the double requirement of providing ample revenue for the support of the government and of rendering the proper protection to home industries. No national taxes, except duties on imported goods, were imposed at the time of its passage. The Civil War changed all this, reducing importations and adding tenfold to the revenue required. The government was justified in increasing existing rates of duty, and in adding to the dutiable list all articles imported, thus including articles of prime necessity and universal use. In addition to these duties, it was compelled to add taxes on all articles of home production, on incomes not required for the supply of actual wants, and, especially, on articles of doubtful necessity, such as sprits, tobacco and beer. These taxes were absolutely required to meet expenditures for the army and navy, for the interest on the war debts and just pensions to those who were disabled by the war, and to their widows and orphans.

These conditions have, in a measure, been fulfilled. The war is over; the public debt has been diminished to one-third of the amount due at the close of the war. The pension list is the chief and almost only outstanding obligation growing out of the war, but this is fully met by internal taxes on spirits, tobacco and beer. What is needed now is a tariff or tax on imported goods sufficient in amount to meet the current expenditures of the government, and which at the same time will tend to encourage the production in this country of all articles, whether of the farm, the mine or the workshop, that can be readily and at reasonable cost produced in this country.

And here we meet the difficulty that the mode, extent, manner and objects of tariff taxation are unhappily mixed up in our party politics. This should not be so. Whether the mode of taxation should be by a percentage on the _value_ of goods imported, or by a duty imposed on the weight or quantity, depends upon the nature of the article. If the article is sold in the market by weight or quantity, the duty should be specific, _i. e._, a certain rate on the unit of weight or quantity. If it is of such a nature that its value cannot be measured by weight or quantity the duty should be _ad valorem, i. e._ a percentage of its value. This is matter of detail to be fixed by the custom of merchants. As a rule it is better to fix the duty upon weight or measure, rather than upon value, for by the former mode the amount is easily ascertained by the scale or yard stick, while to base the duty upon value, changing from day to day, is to invite fraud and litigation.

The extent or rate of duty to be imposed should depend entirely upon the pecuniary wants of the government, and the nature of the article imported. If the article is one of luxury, mainly consumed by the rich, the duty should be at a higher rate than upon an article in general use. This principle is sometimes disputed, but it would seem that in a republic a just discrimination ought to be made in favor of the many rather than of the few. On this principle all political parties have acted. The rates have been higher on silks, satins, furs and the like than on goods made of cotton, wool, flax or hemp. To meet the changing wants of the government all articles should be classified in schedules, so that the rate of duty on a single schedule, or on many schedules, could be advanced or lowered without disturbing the general scheme of taxation.

As to the manner of taxation and the places where duties should be collected, all will agree that they should be paid as nearly as possible where the goods are to be consumed. The concentration of importations at any one port on the coast, or at several ports, gives to the people residing at or near such favored ports an advantage over the people living in the interior of the country. The system of interior ports, or places of delivery to which goods may be consigned, has been adopted and generally approved. The object is that all parts of the country shall have equal facilities and bear equally the burdens of taxation.

The method of importations should be so simplified that any person, in any part of the United States, may order from any commercial port or country any article desired and be able to receive it and pay the prescribed duty, at any considerable port or city in the United States that he may designate.

As to the objects of tariff taxation there is and always will be an honest difference of opinion. The main purpose is to secure the revenue from foreigners seeking our market to dispose of their products. The United States has the right, exercised by every nation, to determine upon what terms the productions of foreign nations shall be admitted into its markets, and those terms will be such as its interests may demand. Great Britain may admit nearly all commodities free of duty, but even that country is guided by her interests in all her commercial regulations. All other nations classified as civilized seek, like the United States, by tariff laws, not only to secure revenue, but to protect and foster domestic industries. Japan has won its entrance among civilized nations by securing treaties with European countries and the United States, by which she has been relieved from restrictions as to her duties on imports, and now has the right to regulate and fix her import duties as her interest dictates.

The United States has from the beginning of its government declared that one object of duties on imports is the encouragement of manufactures in the United States, and, whatever may be the dogma inserted in a political party platform, tariff legislation will continue to have a double object, _revenue and protection_. This was strikingly exemplified by the recent action of Congress in the passage of the tariff law now in force.

The real difficulty in our tariff laws is to avoid unequal and unjust discrimination in the objects of protection, made with a view to favor the productions of one state or section at the cost of another state or section. The dogma of some manufacturers, that raw materials should be admitted free of duty, is far more dangerous to the protective policy than the opposition of free traders. The latter contend that no duties should be levied to protect domestic industry, but for revenue only, while the former demand protection for their industries, but refuse to give to the farmer and miner the benefit of even revenue duties. A denial of protection on coal, iron, wool and other so-called raw materials, will lead to the denial of protection to machinery, to textiles, to pottery and other industries. The labor of one class must not be sacrificed to secure higher protection for another class. The earth and all that is within it is the work of God. The labor of man that tends to develop the resources buried in the earth is entitled to the same favor and protection as skilled labor in the highest branch of industry, and if this is not granted impartially the doctrine of protection proclaimed by the founders of our government, supported for more than a hundred years of wonderful progress, will be sacrificed by the hungry greed of selfish corporations, who ask protection for great establishments and refuse to grant it to the miner, the laborer and the farmer.

Another principle must be ingrafted into our tariff laws, growing out of new modes of production by corporations and combinations. Until recently each miner, each artisan, and each manufacturer, had to compete in the open market with everyone engaged in the same industry. The general public had the benefit of free competition. This tended to lower prices on many commodities, to increase the quantity produced, and to supply the home market, thus excluding importations. The tendency since the Civil War in every branch of industry has been to consolidate operations. To effect this, corporations have been created in most of the states and granted such liberal corporate powers, without respect to the nature of the business to be conducted, and with terms and privileges so favorable, that private enterprise without large capital cannot compete with them. Instead of small or moderate workshops, with a few hands, we now have great establishments with hundreds of employees, and all the capital of scores of stockholders under the control of a few men, and often of one man. This may be of benefit by reducing the cost of production, but it also involves two dangers, one the irrepressible conflict of labor with capital, and the other the combination of corporations engaged in the same business to advance prices and prevent competition, thus constituting a monopoly commanding business and controlling the market.

This power in the hands of a few is at this moment the disturbing element in many of our great industries. It is especially dangerous when it is promoted by rates of duty on imported goods higher than are necessary to cover the difference in the cost of labor here and abroad. When such conditions occur, the monopoly becomes offensive. Such combinations are denounced and punished by the laws of almost every civilized government and by the laws of many of our states. They should be denounced and punished by the laws of the United States whenever they affect any matter within the jurisdiction of the United States. Whenever the tendency of a monopoly is to prevent mutual competition, and to advance prices for any articles embraced in our tariff laws, the duty on the article should be at once reduced or repealed.

As Members of Congress, divided by party lines and crude platforms, must in the main, care for and protect local interests, I do not believe any fair, impartial and business tariff can be framed by them. It would be better for Congress, the law-making power, after determining the amount to be raised, to sanction and adopt a careful tariff bill, framed by an impartial commission, large enough to represent all sections and parties, all employers and employees. Hitherto, the tariffs framed by Congress have been rejected by the people. Each party, in its turn, has undertaken the task with a like result. Let us try the experiment of a tariff framed, not by a party upon a party platform, but by the selected representatives of the commercial, industrial, farming and laboring classes. Let Congress place upon the statute book such a law, and the tariff question will cease to be the foot ball of partisan legislation.

The remainder of the session was occupied chiefly in the consideration of appropriation bills. These were carefully scrutinized; many estimates of the departments were reduced. As usual, appropriations were increased in the Senate, but most of the amendments were rejected in conference.

The bill authorizing a loan for the redemption of treasury notes was passed on the 22nd day of June. Congress adjourned at noon June 25, 1860.

This memorable Congress, commencing with a contest which threatened violence on the floor of the House of Representatives, was held unorganized for sixty days by a defeated party upon a flimsy pretext, and during all that time we had to listen to open threats of secession and disunion made by its members. No previous Congress had exhibited such violence of speech and action. When fully organized it quieted down, and, with occasional exceptions, proceeded rapidly to the discharge of its public duties. A greater number of contested bills were passed at this Congress than usual. Most of these measures came from the committee of ways and means. The members of that committee were Messrs. John Sherman, of Ohio, Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, John S. Phelps, of Missouri, Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, John S. Millson, of Virginia, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia, and Elbridge G. Spaulding, of New York. Of these but two, Mr. Morrill and myself, survive. A brief notice of those who are numbered with the dead may not be out of place.

Henry Winter Davis was the most accomplished orator in the House while he was a Member. Well educated in college, well trained as a lawyer, an accomplished writer and eloquent speaker, yet he was a poor parliamentarian, a careless member in committee, and utterly unfit to conduct an appropriation or tariff bill in the House. He was impatient of details, querulous when questioned or interrupted, but in social life and in intercourse with his fellow Members he was genial, kind and courteous. On one occasion, when I was called home, I requested him to take charge of an appropriation bill and secure its passage. He did as I requested, but he was soon embarrassed by questions he could not answer, and had the bill postponed until my return. I felt for Mr. Davis a personal attachment, and I believe this kindly feeling was reciprocated. He served in the House of Representatives during most of the war, and joined with Senator Wade in opposition to Mr. Lincoln's re- election in 1864. He died at Baltimore on the 20th of December, 1865, when in the full vigor of matured manhood.

John S. Phelps in 1860 was an old and experienced Member. Born in Connecticut he removed to Missouri as early as 1837. In 1844 he was elected to Congress as a Democrat, and continued as a Member sixteen years, being chairman of the committee of ways and means during the 35th Congress. He was a valuable Member, patient, careful, industrious, and had the confidence of the House. He was moderate in his political opinions, and, though a resident of Missouri, he took the Union side in the Civil War.

Thaddeus Stevens, one of the most remarkable men of the last generation, was born in Vermont near the close of the last century; and was well educated. He taught school and studied law. He removed to Pennsylvania and there engaged in turbulent politics; served several years as a member of the state legislature; was elected to Congress in 1848 and served four years. He was known to be an aggressive Whig and a dangerous opponent in debate; was re-elected in 1858 as a Republican and at once took the lead in the speakership contest. His sarcasm was keen and merciless. He was not a very useful member of the committee. He was better in the field of battle than in the seclusion of the committee. Still, when any contest arose in the House over bills reported by the committee, he was always ready to defend its action. Though a cynical old bachelor, with a deformed foot and with a bitter tongue for those he disliked, he was always charitable and kind to the poor. He was quiet and impartial in his charity, recognizing no distinction on account of color, but usually preferring to aid women rather than men. I was often the witness of his charities. He continued in active public life until his death on the 11th of August, 1868. For some time before his death he was unable to walk up the marble steps of the capitol and two stout negroes were detailed to carry him up in a chair. On one occasion when safely seated he grimly said to them, "Who will carry me when you die?" Mr. Stevens was a brave man. He always fought his fights to a finish and never asked or gave quarter.

Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, was one of three brothers, Members of this Congress. Israel was the eldest, and, perhaps, the most active, of the three. He received a classical education, studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1830. He was a good debater and a useful member of the committee. He had been in Congress ten years, including the 36th. He subsequently became governor of Maine, and collector of customs at Portland.

John S. Millson, of Virginia, had long been a Member of Congress, was fifty-two years old, and regarded as a safe, conservative man of fair abilities.

Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia, was a lawyer of good standing. He was elected a Member of Congress in 1854, and continued as such until the rebellion, in which he took an active part. When Georgia seceded, he, with his colleagues, formally withdrew from Congress. Crawford and I had been friendly, and somewhat intimate. He was a frank man, openly avowing his opinions, but with respectful toleration of those of others. After he withdrew we met in the lobby; he bade me good-bye, saying that his next appearance in Washington would be as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Confederate States. I told him that he was more likely to appear as a prisoner of war. I then warned him that the struggle would be to the death, and that the Union would triumph. Long afterwards, when I visited the fair at Atlanta, he recalled our conversation and admitted I was the best prophet. We spent the evening and far into the night talking about the past and the future. He evinced no regret for the result of the war, but quietly acquiesced, and was then a judge in one of the courts in that state.

Elbridge G. Spaulding, of New York, was an excellent Member. He had a taste for financial problems and contributed a good deal to the measures adopted, in this and the 37th Congress, to establish a national currency and to build up the public credit. These Members, with Mr. Morrill and myself, were charged with the most important legislation in the 36th Congress, and I believe that the general opinion of the House was that we did our duty well.