CHAPTER X.

The Tariff-Opinions of Messrs. Clay and Polk upon that question.—Message of Mr. Polk.-Report of the Secretary of the Treasury.-Passage of the Tariff of 1846.-Arguments of the friends and opponents of free trade. -The Constitutional Treasury established.-Discussions in the Constitutional Convention -Public Debt of the United States.-Proposed Tax upon Tea and Coffee.

THE tariff was a prominent question in the presidential contest of 1844. The act of 1842 had violated the principles of the compromise of 1833,* and the exciting subject, instead of being put "to rest for ever," was again to be decided by the American people. The principles of the two candidates upon this interesting and difficult question, were well defined prior to the termination of their congressional career. Mr. Polk was thoroughly committed to the policy of a revenue tariff, and Mr. Clay, when the compromise act was under discussion, pledged the party favorable to protection, to a reduction of the tariff to a revenue standard.+ Previous to his nomi

* "The present tariff law is sufficiently discriminating; holds to common sense, and rejects the principles of the Compromise Act, I hope, for ever."-Mr. Webster's Speech at Faneuil Hall, September, 1842.

"I am anxious to find out some principles of mutual accommodation, to satisfy, as far as practicable, both parties; to increase the stability of our legislation; and, at some distant day-but not too distant, when we take into view the magnitude of the interests which are involved-to bring down the rate of duties to that revenue standard for which our opponents

nation for the presidency, Mr. Clay made a speech at Raleigh, in which he advocated discriminating duties for the protection of domestic industry.* This was followed by his letter, in September, 1844, to a whig committee in Pennsylvania, in which he gave in his adhesion to the tariff of 1842. Alarmed at the prospect of losing votes in the Southern States, by his opposition to the annexation of Texas, he saw certain defeat in the future, unless he could rally to his support the people of the North. This produced one concession after another, until he had abandoned the ground which he occupied in 1833.† No excuse can be offered for this palpable abandonment of principles which had been so solemnly proclaimed; and the words which he uttered in 1833, are a withering rebuke upon the course which he subsequently pursued, and stamp in letters of living fire upon his own forehead, the anathemas which he fulminated in advance against others.

The course pursued by Mr. Polk during that campaign, is by no means free from a just criticism.

have so long contended."-Speech of Mr. Clay in the Senate on a Compromise Act, 1833.

Let

*"Here is a basis for accommodation and mutual satisfaction. the amount which is requisite for an economical administration of the Government, when we are not engaged in a war, be raised exclusively on foreign imports; and in adjusting a tariff for that purpose, let such discriminations be made as will foster and encourage our own domestic industry. All parties ought to be satisfied with a tariff for revenue, and discriminations for protection.”—Mr. Clay's Raleigh Speech.

"When this was known, what Congress, what Legislature, would mar the guaranty? What man, who is entitled to deserve the character of an American statesman, would stand up in his place in either House of Congress, and disturb the treaty of peace and amity?"—Mr. Clay's Speech, February 12, 1833.

Several letters were addressed to him, soliciting his views upon the tariff question; and the answer which he gave to one of them, was the subject of much discussion in every section of the Union.* While it was admitted in several of the Southern States, that Mr. Clay was in favor of discriminations for the protection of home industry, it was at the same time insisted that Mr. Polk entertained the same views. In Pennsylvania, it was argued by the democratic party, that the two candidates occupied the same platform upon the tariff question. If the principles which Mr. Polk really entertained were misunderstood, owing to the phraseology of his Kane letter, he was not himself altogether blameless for

* "DEAR SIR: I have received recently several letters, in reference to my opinions on the subject of the tariff, and, among others, yours of the 30th ultimo. My opinions on this subject have been often given to the public. They are to be found in my public acts, and in the public discussions in which I have participated.

"I am in favor of a tariff for revenue, such a one as will yield a sufficient amount to the treasury to defray the expenses of the Government, economically administered. In adjusting the details of a revenue tariff, I have heretofore sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed, and at the same time afford reasonable incidental protection to our home industry. I am opposed to a tariff for protection merely and not for revenue."-Letter of Mr. Polk to John K. Kane, dated Columbia, Tennessee, June 19, 1844.

†The author was upon the democratic electoral ticket in Tennessee, in 1844, and his opponent, while he admitted that Mr. Clay was in favor of discriminating duties for the protection of home industry, would insist, from the language of the Kane letter, that Mr. Polk was a protectionist to the same extent as Mr. Clay.

"We therefore insisted that the one was as good a tariff man as the other."-Speech of James Thompson of Penn., July 1, 1846. Congressional Globe, Appendix, 1st session 29th Congress.

Mr. Thompson was explaining the course pursued in that State in the contest between Messrs. Clay and Polk.

the error which was committed by his supporters. It is not to be disguised, that the English language was of sufficient scope and flexibility to enable him to define his opinions with more clearness and greater precision. If he had stated that he was in favor of a tariff discriminating alone in favor of revenue, there would have been no misconception of his views. Or if he had expressed his preference for such discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed,-protection flowing as a necessary incident therefrom, every man of ordinary understanding would have comprehended his meaning. The voters in the North were deceived by the use of language which had the effect of obscuring, instead of more clearly defining his position. The assertion that he had sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed, was the statement of a fact which the record confirms; and there he ought to have stopped, because every one understands that protection flows as a necessary incident from a revenue tariff. The statement that he was opposed to a tariff for protection merely, and not for revenue, should have been transposed, by asserting that he was in favor of a tariff for revenue merely, which would have endorsed the principles he had always entertained, and which he subsequently enforced with his characteristic ability and energy.

The views which Mr. Polk entertained, were explained with precision and ability in his first annual message. The principles which would govern his

*

"The attention of Congress is invited to the importance of making

administration were proclaimed with great boldness, and the odious features of the tariff of 1842 were thoroughly investigated and exposed.

Congress

suitable modifications and reductions of the rates of duty imposed by our present tariff laws. The object of imposing duties on imports should be to raise revenue to pay the necessary expenses of Government. Congress may, undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, discriminate in arranging the rates of duty on different articles; but the discriminations should be within the revenue standard, and be made with a view to raise money for the support of the Government."

"It becomes important to understand distinctly what is meant by a revenue standard, the maximum of which should not be exceeded in the rates of duty imposed. It is conceded, and experience proves that duties may be laid so high as to diminish, or prohibit altogether, the importation of any given article, and thereby lessen or destroy the revenue which, at lower rates, would be derived from its importation. Such duties exceed the revenue rates, and are not imposed to raise money for the support of government. If Congress levy a duty for revenue of one per cent. on a given article, it will produce a given amount of money to the treasury, and will incidentally and necessarily afford protection or advantage to the amount of one per cent. to the home manufacturer of a similar or like article over the importer. If the duty be raised to ten per cent., it will produce a greater amount of money, and afford greater protection. If it be still raised to twenty, twenty-five, or thirty per cent., and if as it is raised the revenue derived from it is found to be increased, the protection or advantage will also be increased; but if it be raised to thirty-one per cent., and it is found that the revenue produced at that rate is less than thirty per cent., it ceases to be a revenue duty. The precise point in the ascending scale of duties at which it is ascertained from experience that the revenue is greatest, is the maximum rate of duty which can be laid for the bona fide purpose of collecting money for the support of the Government. To raise the duties higher than that point, and thereby diminish the amount collected, is to levy them for protection merely, and not for revenue. As long, then, as Congress may gradually increase the rate of duty on a given article, and the revenue is increased by such increase of duty, they are within the revenue standard. When they go beyond that point, and as they increase the duties, the revenue is diminished or destroyed, the act ceases to have for its object the raising of money to support Government, but is for protection merely.”

It does not follow that Congress should levy the highest duty on all articles of import which they will bear within the revenue standard; for