PROPOSAL TO TAX IMPORTED SLAVES. every gallon of rum exported. Tucker then made a long speech advocating a general reduction and proposing that, as a starter, the tax on distilled spirits be reduced by 6 cents per gallon.* A grave and serious debate ensued, during which Ames warned the House that, if an unpopular revenue act were passed, the people would be against the new government.† After Madison had spoken in a conciliatory tone, the motion to reduce the duty was rejected by a vote of 26 to 19.‡ Parker, of Virginia, now proposed that a duty of $10 apiece be laid on all negroes imported into the country. He argued that the practice of slavery was nefarious and should be prohibited, and that a tax might act as a deterrent to an "irrational and inhuman" traffic. In reply, Jackson, of Georgia, said that because Virginia had all the slaves she needed, she should not act selfishly in the matter but allow the other States to secure the necessary supply of slaves. before an impost were laid. He said the negroes were better situated in slavery, since they would not work. when free. He cited Maryland, where the slaves had been set free and had turned "pick-pockets and petty larceny villains."§ Madison said: 99 "It is to be hoped that by expressing a national disapprobation of this trade we may destroy it, * * * a and save ourselves from reproaches, and our Everything, therefore, which tends to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet, if it involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general administration of the government." Burke saw little difference between laying a specific duty of $10 on slaves and collecting a five per cent. duty on them as merchandise, the amount of revenue being practically the same.t After some debate, Parker withdrew his motion, and henceforth the provision in the Constitution laying a tax of $10 on importing slaves remained. a dead letter. A free trade policy was established so far as slaves were concerned, until the traffic was supposed to cease by Constitutional limitation. in 1808. On May 15 the bill was recommitted to the Committee of the Whole, whereupon Madison moved that the operation of the law be limited to a certain 100 PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF ACT. time. An animated debate followed, but the next day the time was fixed as the end of the session of Congress to be held next after June 1, 1796.* The bill was then passed (41 to 8) and sent to the Senate. No reports of these debates of the Senate have been preserved,† but on June 11 the bill was returned to the House with numerous amendments. These differences were adjusted, the bill was passed again, and by the signature of President Washington became law July 4, 1789.|| By its terms specific duties were levied on thirty-six enumerated articles: 15 per cent. ad valorem on carriages; 10 per cent. on seven articles; 72 per cent. on sixteen articles; and 5 per cent. on all other goods save seventeen articles, which constituted the first free list. On Jamaica proof spirits the duty was 10 cents per gallon; on all other spirits 8 cents; on molasses 2 cents; on cocoa 1 cent per pound; on coffee 212 cents; on Madeira wine 18 cents per gallon; on other wine 10 cents per gallon. The articles over which controversies arose were taxed as fol lows: malt 10 cents per bushel; brown sugar 1 cent a pound; loaf sugar 3 cents a pound; tallow candles 2 cents; untarred cordage and yarn 90 cents per hundredweight (112 pounds); steel 56 cents per hundredweight; coal 2 cents a bushel; nails and spikes 1 cent a pound; and salt 6 cents a bushel. A duty of 6 cents was laid on Bohea tea coming direct from China or India in vessels owned wholly by Americans, but 8 cents if the tea came from other countries, and 15 cents if the vessels were owned by foreigners. On glass, china, stone and earthenware, lace, paint, gunpowder, buckles, and gold and silver lace the rate was 10 per cent. ad valorem; on metal wares, iron castings, hats, millinery and ready-made clothing, gloves and leather, paper, cabinet ware and buttons, the rate was 72 per cent.; the free list included old metal, wool, cotton, dyestuffs, hides and fur, and saltpetre. On hemp the duty was 75 cents per hundredweight, and on cotton three cents per pound, to become operative on December 1, 1790.* Upon imported goods exported within a year after the payment of duty a drawback of the full duty, less 1 per cent., was allowed; and on each quintal of dried fish, barrel of pickled fish, and barrel of salted meat exported a DEBATE ON TONNAGE DUTY. bounty of 5 cents was allowed in lieu of a drawback. If goods were imported in vessels wholly owned by Americans, a discount of 10 per cent. was allowed.* During the discussion on the tariff a protracted debate occurred respecting a tonnage duty discriminating against the shipping from countries with which the United States was not in alliance,t but the measure was separated from the revenue bill and passed later. The New England members joined those from the Middle States in advocating a tonnage duty, claiming that the distress of the East was due to the lack of such an impost, and that a protective tariff would give life to the ship-building industry, then practically dead. The southern mem 101 bers, on the other hand, claimed that a tonnage duty would ruin the South, as many of the vessels carrying southern produce was foreign.* The duty would increase the freightage, and the crops of the planters would rot on the ground on of account of prohibitive freight rates. Nevertheless, the duty was laid-6 cents on vessels built and owned in the United States, 30 cents on vessels built but not owned in the United States, as well as on vessels belonging to nations having treaties with the United States, and 50 cents on all others. But when it came to discriminating against vessels of foreign nations who refused to enter into treaty alliance with the United States, another heated discussion arose. Madison urged that allied nations should be given the Britain, the members from New England, New York and Charleston strongly opposed Madison's views. Madison believed that we had a right to make such discrimination and that by favoring such nations as had treaties of commercial reciprocity with us. we not only strengthened the ties already formed abroad, but would be in * Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 58- preference, but as this excluded Great 60; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 81-82. As to the protective features of the bill, see Stanwood, p. 60 et seq.; Bolles, Financial History, p. 78; Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. i., p. 631; vol. ii., p. 16; Hill, First Stages of the Tariff Policy, p. 112; W. G. Sumner, Protection in the United States, p. 24; Condy Raguet, Principles of Free Trade, p. 9; H. C. Adams, Taxation in the United States, p. 26 et sc.; F. W. Taussig, Tariff History of the United States, p. 14 (ed. 1910). On the tariff in general, see also F. W. Taussig, State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff, pp. 1-107; W. Hill, Protective Purpose of the Tariff Act of 1789, in Journal of Political Economy, vol. ii., pp. 54-77; O. L. Elliott, The Tariff Controversy in the United States, 1789– 1833, in Leland Stanford Jr. University Monographs in History and Economics, No. i., pp. 6792; Ugo Rabbeno, The American Commercial Policy, pp. 111-145; Coman, Industrial History of the United States, pp. 139-144; Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. ii., p. 179 et seq. See Annals of Congress, vol. i., pp. 176, 233, 252, 272. These are abridged considerably in Benton, p. 53 et seq. Annals of Congress, vol. i., pp. 179-180, 187188; Gay, Life of Madison, p. 134; Katharine Coman, Industrial History of the United States, P. 131. † Act July 20, 1789, 1st Congress, 1st session, chap. iii.; Bolles, Financial History, p. 76; Annals of Congress, vol. ii., p. 2132; McMaster, vol. i., pp. 549-552; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 83-84. Annals of Congress, vol. i., p. 181 et seq.; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., p. 48 et seq. 102 REVISION OF THE TARIFF IN 1790. a position to force other nations to come to terms and seek our friendship.* The opposition maintained, however, that this affront to Great Britain would irritate without injuring her, and that we could not afford to provoke such a powerful nation. Nevertheless the House passed the measure, with with the the discriminating clause incorporated, and sent it to the Senate. The latter eliminated this clause and returned the bill; as conference committees failed to reach an agreement, the bill was finally passed, with the assurance that the Senate would take up the tonnage discrimination separately. In this expectation Washington signed the bill July 20. But the Senate failed to act, and when in the next session Madison again brought up the subject, the Senate refused to sanction the measure.t The tariff act of July 4, 1789, was an experimental measure and was soon found to need revision. In January of 1790, during the second session of the First Congress, Hamilton estimated the expenses of the government at $600,000 and said that $2,239,163 would be required to pay the interest on the domestic and foreign debts. He thought the existing duties would suffice if the rates on wines, spirits, For his speech of May 4, see Annals of Congress, vol. i., pp. 236-240; for an abstract, see Hunt, Life of Madison, pp. 172-174. Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 101-102. See also Madison's letters regarding this, in Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. i., pp. 470, 472, 474, 480 et seq., 485-486. tea and coffee were increased and an excise placed on domestic spirits. Accordingly on April 27, 1790, the House in Committee of the Whole adopted resolutions favoring duties on foreign spirits, ranging from 20 to 40 cents per gallon, according to proof, and an excise on domestic spirits ranging from 9 to 25 cents per gallon. The excise feature excited a warm debate, and, on May 11, after two ineffectual attempts to strike out the excise provision, a vote was cast which practically amounted to a rejection of the bill. As some means of raising revenue had to be found, a committee was appointed June 21, with Fitzsimons as chairman and Madison as second member. Of this committee three members favored the excise and two opposed it. Its report was made June 29. On July 2, in Committee of the Whole, the House passed resolutions favoring a general increase of 50 per cent. in the duties on specified articles and a still larger increase in the duties on tea, coffee, wines, spirits and spices. On July 13 a bill was reported in accordance with the committee's findings, was briefly debated and, on July 19, passed. With a few amendments, the Senate passed the bill August 5. The House accepted the amendments, and on August 10, 1790, the bill became a law. By this act the duty on hemp was reduced from 60 to 54 cents per hundredweight, that on *Acts of Congress, 1st Congress, 2d session, chap. xxxix. |