The Tariff in Our TimesTarbell, Ida M. (Ida Minerva)
History
The Tariff in Our Times
Tarbell, Ida M. (Ida Minerva)
Tariff -- United States -- History
The strength and the respectability of the faction which had seceded
from the Republican party on tariff reform and kindred issues, alarmed
the leaders who had been backing the iron and wool and copper and salt
people in their demands. They appreciated that they must do something
toward reform or the party would suffer still more seriously. All
through the early months of 1872 a struggle went on to get a bill which
should cut down the surplus without antagonizing any politically strong
special interest. It could not be done. Senator Sherman finally said
frankly to the lobbyists who were besieging the committee that it was to
their interest to have a reduction made. “In my deliberate judgment,” he
said, “it is better for the protected industries of the country that
this slight reduction of duties (it was the question of a general 10 per
cent reduction) should be made rather than to invite a contest which
will endanger the whole system.”
After much struggle Mr. Dawes reported a bill in April, which he hoped
Congress could unite on. Mr. Finkelnburg of Missouri spoke for the bill.
It was not what he wanted, he said, but it should be supported, because
it was a step in the right direction:
“Its chief merit,” said Mr. Finkelnburg, “lies in this, that after
six years of peace it is the first bill reported to the House by a
regular standing committee which proposes to make a substantial and
general, though moderate reduction, in the war duties imposed upon
the leading necessaries of life, the staple articles of consumption
used by the people of the United States. It is the first step in the
scaling downward, the inauguration of a policy of reduction, and as
such I bespeak for it the support of all friends of revenue reform.
“It is true the reductions proposed in the bill are very moderate;
so much so that the bill may, with apparent justice, be criticised
for not going far enough. It is not what I would like to see, and
far from my ideas of true revenue reform; but I gave it my support
firstly, because I want to accomplish something practical, and I
felt that if we asked the House to do more it would result in
nothing being done; and secondly, because I recognize a fact which
should govern all legislation of this kind, namely, that changes in
a tariff schedule, which more or less affect business relations and
values throughout a country, ought to be made slowly and gradually,
step by step, leaving to the next year what remains undone in this,
until we arrive at that normal point where the duties may once more
assume a permanent character as they did before the war.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account