No, fi Information Ibi* tlie Ir^cople. uag- cs. HIGH AND LOW TARIFFS, AND THEIR EFFECTS. Whatever may be claimed to the contrary, the first duty of a civilized government is to protect the interests of those over whom it exercises its guardianship. It is the duty of the head of a family to provide for his household, and to use every legitimate means to advance the interests and improve tlie condition of each individual under his pro¬ tection. It is the same with the national government, which is, and of right must be, eo far, purely selfish in its policy—aiming by every possible means within its power, to advance tlie material, political and social interests of its own people, without regard to those of other nationalities, except so far as not to interfere with their rights. The nation may, and should encourage the pur¬ suit of foreign commerce just to the extent that international trade will tend to the bene¬ fit of its own people, and no further. And it would be folly to attempt to argue that any civilized nation is prompted by any other motive than that here indicated.* There is and must be a national selfishness, and no treaty is made or international priv¬ ilege accepted, in which each of the con¬ tracting powers does not believe that it will be directly benefitted in the result. A nation is therefore not only morally free, but in duty bound, by the claims of its own people, to ordain such tariff regulations as will best subserve its own interests, how¬ ever much they may be to the disadvantage of other nationalities. A tariff of duties imposed on imported goods, to be considered impartially and treated properly, must be viewed from a na¬ tional, rather than a sectional stand-point. Its objects will then be admitted to be of a two-fold nature— First: To provide a Revenue for the Gov¬ ernment. Second: To afford Protection to Home In¬ dustry. If we except F.ngland, which abandoned a highly protective policy, and adopted the free trade principle, from a purely selfish motive—a change from which her manufac¬ turers are now suffering!—there is not to-day * “ The nation existsofitself anil for itself—not by the grace or for the benctit of any beyond its bound¬ aries. The nation’s chief duty is to attend scrupu¬ lously to its own welfare. It is to pursue its own ends by its own means, strenuously perfecting its organic law, and enhancing its internal vigor, while also growing outwardly, so far as it may do so with prudence, and without trenching upon the rights or meddling with the affairs of others.”— Wharton. “It may well be doubted whether, in modern times, any tiuanc'.al legislation, even under its most favorable conditions, can or ought to recognize any other principle than that of elightened selfish¬ ness Kep. Sp'l Com. Internallltvenue, 1SG8, p. 24. t To encourage the manufacture of beet sugar at home, France imposed a duty on imported sugar. That country is now producing sugar at 3 to cento a civilized government that does not recognize and act upon the principle of both revenue and protection in the arrangement of its tariff on foreign importations. At the very commencement of the United States Government, the two-fold object of a tariff was distinctly recognized, and acted upon. All Congressional controversy that has since taken place on the subject—beyond that necessary to a proper adjustment of the tariff-—originated in sectionalism and the absence of a national patriotism. The first legislative action on the subject was purely national in its character. In the very first session of the first Congress a law was passed, the preamble of which declares it to be “necessary for the support of the Govern¬ ment, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and encouragement of manufac¬ tures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise import 3d.” Without going into historical details (for which there is not room in a short article), it is enough to say here that the tariff has been frequently changed from high to low, and low to high rates of duty, and always with decided results in the effects produced on the revenues of the Government and the industries of the country. Wages are so much lower in European countries that a low tariff in the United States has invariably opened the way for a surfeit of foreign goods, to the injury of our own manufacturers, while a high protective tariff has simply placed our manufacturers on an equal foot¬ ing with foreign competitors. For illustration the last twenty years of our experience may be selected. During the first five years of this period the Government was under Democratic rule, as it had been for a number of years before, and the country went through A LOW TARIFF EXPERIENCE. Free Trade was then and still is the Demo¬ cratic policy. The customs tariff on dutia¬ ble goods did not average over 21 })er cent., and on the aggregate of imported goods it per pound, and after supplying her own pepole, is exporting to England to such an extent that the English refiners of colonial sugars have become alarmed, and appealed to Hie Government for pro¬ tection. -A delegation of them. In a recent interview with Lord Derby, declared that the “ enormous In¬ crease” in the product of French beet sugar would, if it continued, “swamp the West Indies.” Belgium is supplying England largely with iron; Germany sends over supplies of broad cloths; and United States manufacturers are doing a good busi¬ ness in the English markets, in the liue of superior cutlery. George T. Clarke, Esq., for twauty years an iron¬ master in South Wales, In an article in the London Economist, of March 13, 1875, lamenting the condi¬ tion of the English iron trade, says of freetrader “ To it, almost all foreign nations are, at the least, indifferent, and all foreign governments, wtxethet monarchical er democratic, are opposed. ” f 2 . was less than 17 per cent., as the following table will show: K o w CUSTOMS. IMPORTS. ^Lj ■*» — 1 3. ?§ T5 'lo © • B Free. Dutiable. IS*). - ) 5:j 025 704 00 4 ). f.O). 336 221 378.184 23 00 29 03 18T»1» 64,022 803 00 56 055,726 257. 681.236 25 00 2) (): 1 S'57 63 875 005 00 66.720 36 294,16). 835 21. 05 17 07 18:8 4| 78,).624 0!) S) 810’. 275 202 203 875 2). 0: 14 08 1851) 40 565 S 4 0!) 70 721. 116 259 047 014 10 00 14. or I8!»j 5.} 187 511 00 0 ) 84 i 740 279 872 327 10 00 14 07 18-U 30 582 Mi oo 134 550,105 218,18) 19 iS 01 11 02 1802 40,053 398 oil 01 6 3 481:183 813 458 26 07 17 07 1863 60 1 50 612 00 44 826,029 2 )S ( 93 89. 3 5.02 3 07 1881 102 316. 153 00 51.24 4, 185 275. 32) 95 37 02 51.00 1865 84 928 25) 00 54 329 588,19 4 226,< 64 4! 07 54 02 1866 i 70, 046 63 ) 00 69 728 6IS • >i») i »)4 47 06 4 >. 02 1867 176 417,811 CO 39 115 7 .8 372.627,6)1 47 34 42 0( 1868 64 464 500 56 29 S 14 147 343 6 5 301 47.86 44 08 I860 180,048,426 r»:i 41.179,172 595 8 47 36! 15 48 11.0. 187) 194 538 374 44 46 559 965 4’5 817 622 46 78 42. 0( 1871 2 16.27 ) 4 8 05 57.857 701:483 635,947 12 .63 38 07 1872 216.37) 28(5 7 k 61,010 9 2 570. 327,864 57 5 2 33 7! 1871 188 ( SO 522 7/ 166 206 821 497 32 ),32B ’>7 S 28 3- 1S7 163 105 833 60 179 935.686 415 92 4 48, 30 21 27 5- There are those living who remember the condition of the country from 1855 to lSGi. Our markets were supplied with imported manufactures, and American mills, factories and workshops were-closed; wages weft re¬ duced to the lowest point, and three-fourths of the factory employes and mechanics throughout the country were idle. In 1857, general distress prevailed.* The revenues were reduced, until they failed to meet the current expenses of the Government. By- Act of December, 1857, $20,000, Of' /of Treas¬ ury notes were issued to relieve the Govern¬ ment. On the 14th of dune, 1858. an addi¬ tional loan was ordered, amounting to $20,- 000,000 more ; but so iow had the public credit become, no money could be obtained at home or abroad. Subsequently, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to dispose of the securities on the best terms he could make, and they were sold at 8, 10, and even 12 per cent, discount. The debt thus in¬ curred under the Buchanan low-tari If admin¬ istration was paid by Secretary Chase in 1SG2, in the midst of the pressure for money to myet the expenses of the Democratic rebel¬ lion. Sick of their low tariff experience, Presi¬ dent Buchanan, the representative of the Democratic free-trade policy, in his message to Congress, December G, 1858, ‘'recom¬ mended an increase of the tariff and a resort to specific duties, as the only reliable means of collecting the revenues, and at the same time affording that incidental protection to manufactures, to which they were fairly en¬ titled under a revenue tariff.” ,r Mr. Dobbins,a practical firmer from New Jersey, sale in tiie House of Representatives. February 1*2.1375: “ 1 have been an observer, sir, as well as a practical man.and i Have invariably fouml that, mi¬ ller a low tariff, or the free trade system,the practi¬ ce* bearing-of it was general d* vastuioii ami want. The business Interests of the country have g noo- atiy suilered, an t suffered materially. And. sir, l believe mat our interests arc mutual; that when the great manuhicluring interests.of the country aro prosperous, then all are prosperous. V UNDER A nron TARIFF experience. After depleting the Treasury, and prepar¬ ing the way for secession and a civil war, the Democratic party went out of power. Their successors favored a tariff for the two¬ fold purpose of Revenue and Protection, and from, that period up to the present time, the Government has been conducted on that prin¬ ciple. The tariff was increased from time to time up to an extreme—under the necessi¬ ties of war, and to meet the war expenses— far beyond t^ie requirements of a peace policy. The revenues from the tariff alone, since ISOi, have amounted to the enormous sum of $2,170,400,215.90—an amount nearly equal to tho public debt, and which, in gold, would require seven ships to transport it from New York to Liverpool, each one carrying five hundred tons in weight; and there would still remain one hundred tons of gold, worth $G0,279,900, in coin. But what has the tariff accomplished du¬ ring the period indicated ? 1. It sustained the war. It is true that funds were raised through other sources ; but the tariff was the controlling influence in replenishing the Treasury, providing tho sinews of war and paying war debts, by contributing from one hundred up to more than two hundred million dollars per annum. Without this revenue, not a dollar could have been raised on United States bonds in Europe. They would have remained un¬ touched, as in the days of ilie Buchanan ad¬ ministration, and the nation would have been severed and sacrificed to the spirit of secession—its fragmentary remains to-day affording a sorry sequel to the experiment of Republican government. 2. The tariff restored the lost credit of tho Government, and more than doubled its bor¬ rowing power. Under Buchanan’s adminis¬ tration, borrowed money cost 12 per cent, to obtain. Under the present administra¬ tion, a loan of $500,000,000—necessitated by the Democratic rebelkon—has just been completed at 5 per cent, per annum, and the next loan, under the funding act, will bo taken at 4k per cent. 3. The tariff has more than doubled the manufacturing power of the nation. Hun¬ dreds of new industries have sprung into existence that would not have been attempted under a low tariff, and against the competi¬ tion of older manufacturing countries. The crisis of 1873, let it be understood, was the result, not of stagnation under a high tariff, but of tho consummate folly of speculative expansion. The tariff saved the country from the prostration that would otherwise have inevitably followed close after the war ; but injudicious speculation blocked the wheels of business, at a later period. This has now nearly effected its own cure, and under a judicious tariff there is a bright fu¬ ture ahead. WHO PAYS TIIF. REVENUE DERIVED FROM IM¬ PORTED GOODS? Having demonstrated the office and power of a judicious tariff in providing revenues, sustaining the credit of the nation, and ibs- a Ay 5 5 ' Vrlr.g its industries, the next natural enquiry is : Who pays this largo animal revenue ? Free-traders contend that “The nation which undertakes to collect revenue by duties upon imported goods, takes the most costly and absurd method of taxing its people, out of whose pockets all that revenue comes.” * * Standing thus on a false basis, Free-trad¬ ers next claim that the same amount that is collected upon imported goods is also added to all home products of a similar character. In other words, that our duty of four cents per pound on Canadian butter increases the price of all the butter made in the United States, four cents per pound.f And hav¬ ing taken this position, Free-traders next charge that the Government, in this way, actually takes money out of the pockets of our citizens who are consumers, and puts it into the pockets of those who are manufactur¬ ers ; thus “confiscating the property of one citizen for the benefit of another.” Strange as it may appear, these absurd assumptions find believers, and thus an opposition to a judicious tariff is maintained. Now let us see how this free-trade theory would work in practice : The duty on wheat is twenty cents a bushel, and it is imposed for the protection of our farmers, against the importation of Canadian and other foreign wheat. According to the Free-traders’ theo¬ ry, this duty of twenty cents a bushel paid on imported wheat will add twenty cents a bushel to all wheat grown in the United States. The census of 1S70 shows that the product of wheat for the previous year was 2S7,745,626 bushels. Twenty cents a bushel added. to the price would put $57,549,125.20 more into the pockets of our farmers than they would receive, if wheat came into the country duty free. This would be a pretty nice thing for the farmers, if the free-trade theory held good in practice. Unfortunately for wheat growers it does not.t The Cana¬ dian wheat that comes to our markets does not affect the price of the home article ; if it did, in any way, it would be to reduce the price of our own product liy competition. But the imported quantity is so small, com¬ pared wi. h the home product,that it has no per¬ ceptible effect on our current market prices. The hit is, the foreign producer must pay the di.vv out of his own pocket, and then sell at our prices. The same conditions hold good with nine-tenths of all the foreign goods that come to the United States for a market. The home product is so much larger than the im¬ *Jos*-ph WIliirtou, ia the “AtlanticMonthly,” for September, 1S73. t Here Is the statement of the Free-trade Leasrne of New York, taken-from one of their pub'ieations : n The tariff raises tue price of both American ami foreign articles. This necessarily follows from the foreign article selling here; for if the American was not raised to Ihc same price it would uudeiseil the foreign, and the foreign could not be sold.” * The absurdity of the free-trade doctrine is demon¬ strated in the article of crude petroleum, which fre¬ quently sells at 3 to 5 cents per gallon. The duty is 20 cents. Will those idiots explain how they manage to crowd the 20 cents duty into the cost, and still place the article on the market at 3 to 5 cepts? parted quantity, that our own supply estab¬ lishes prices, and the foreign producer enters into competition with us in our own markets wi‘h the full understanding that he must pay the duty on his products, and then* sell them at our current market prices.* During the last fiscal year, there were $157,167,722.35 of revenue derived from the duty on imported goods. Of this, not less than $125,000,000 were paid by the foreign producers. It was paid for the privilege of using the United States markets for the sale of their commodi¬ ties, and is as directa tax on the producer as are the charges for freight, insurance, and commissions. Foreign importers know this better than some of our own people, after listening to the sophisms of Free-traders,who are more interested in crowding our markets with foreign products, than they are in giv¬ ing encouragement to Home Industry. If tlie duty on imported goods did not come out of the pockets of foreign producers,we should be entirely free from outside pressure for re¬ ciprocity with the Dominion of Canada, and less money would be contributed by English manufacturers to circulate free-trade docu¬ ments among the people of this country.! A TARIFF INCREASES HOME COMPETITION, AX© REDUCES TUE PRICE OF PRODUCTS. Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury, fully comprehended, the effects of a protective tariff. At the opening of the second session of the First Congress, in his celebrated financial report, Mr. Hamilton said : ” Tint thoucli It were true that the Imm'dlate au