dangerous dependence upon foreign nations for the arms, the implements of farming and other machinery needed for their own safety, protection and independence.

It is thus seen that the doctrine of protection to home manufactures— to home products, was coeval with our national organization. It had its enemies even then; and then, as now, the most conspicuous were either Englishmen or men imbued with English ideas; but all of the leading men; the men whose actions and legislation made the Revolution a success; the men who formulated our glorious Constitution, and secured its adoption by the several States-all voted for the Protective Tariff Bili, and rejoiced greatly when it became a law.

OPINIONS OF PRESIDENTS.-Five of these leading men became Presidents while the law of 1789 remained on our Statue Book; and it may not be uninteresting nor unprofitable to learn right here what the great men thought of Protection to home manufactures.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, in his first annual message, speaking of ou nation as "a free people," said :

"Their safety and interest require that they promote such mant factures as tend to render them independent of others for essentials, particularly military supplies."

In his seventh annual message he shows that "our agriculture, commerce and manufactures prosper beyond example (under the tariff of 1789). Every part of the Union displays indications of rapid and various improvement, and with burdens so light as scarcely to be perceived. Is it too much to say that our country exhibits a spectacle of national happiness never surpassed, if ever before equalled ?"

In his eighth and last annnal message Washington said: "Congress has repeatedly and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence not to insure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible."

JOHN ADAMS, our second President, in his last annual messag referred to our economical system, and congratulated the country upo the great prosperity then existing, and added: "I observe, with muck satisfaction, that the product of the revenue during the present year has been more considerable than during any former period.

"This result affords conclusive evidence of the great resources of the country, and of the wisdom and efficiency of the measures which have been adopted by Congress, for the protection of commerce and preservation of the public credit."

THOMAS JEFFERSON, our third President, often referred to as the Founder of the Democratic Party, in his second annual message, in enumerating the land-marks by which we are to guide ourselves in all ous proceedings, mentions the following as one of the most prominent: "To protect the manufactures adapted to our circumstances."

Our protective system, under the Tariff Act of 1789, had produceŭ results far greater and more satisfactory than had been anticipated; and

in 1806 Mr. Jefferson found that there was likely to be a considerable surplus after paying all the public debt called for by our contracts; and in his sixth annual message he thus presents his views to the country as to the best method of disposing of that surplus: "Shall we," he asks, “suppress the imposts (duties) and give that advantage to foreign over our domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season, will doubtless be right; but the great mass of the articles on which imposts are laid, are foreign luxuries, purchased/ by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them." Again he wrote: "The general inquiry now is, shall we make our own comforts, or go without them at the will of a foreign nation? He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufactures, must be for reducing us either to a dependence upon that nation, or to be clothed in skins and live like beasts in caves and dens. I am proud to say I am not one of these. Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comforts."

"The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture, which prudence requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves, without regard to difference of price, secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency."

In his letter to Humphrey, 1809, he wrote: "My own idea is that we should encourage home manufactures to the extent of our own consumption of everything of which we raise the raw materials."

In 1817, after the close of the second war with Great Britain, in accepting an election to membership in a "Society for the Encouragement of Domestic Manufactures," Jefferson wrote: "The history of the last twenty years has been a significant lesson for us all to depend for necessaries on ourselves alone; and I hope twenty years more will place the American hemisphere under a system of its own, essentially peaceable and industrious and not needing to extract its comforts out of the eternal fires raging in the old world."

JAMES MADISON, our fourth President, recognized as "the Father of the Constitution,” in a special message to Congress, May 23, 1809, said: "It will be worthy of the just and provident care of Congress to make such further alterations in the laws as will more especially protect and foster the several branches of manufacture which have been recently instituted or extended by the laudible exertions of our citizens.

Again, in a special message, Feb. 20, 1815, Mr. Madison said: "But there is no subject that can enter with greater force and merit into the deliberations of Congress than a consideration of the means to preserve and promote the manufactures which have sprung into existence and obtained an unparalleled maturity throughout the United States during the period of the European wars. This source of national independence and wealth I anxiously recommend, therefore, to the prompt and constant guardianship of Congress."

JAMES MONROE, our fifth President, in his inaugural said :

"Our

manufactures will likewise require the systematic and fostering care of the government. Possessing, as we do, all the raw materials, the fruit of our own soil and industry, we ought not to depend, in the degree we have done, on supplies from other countries. Equally important is it to provide at home a market for our raw materials, as by extending the competition. it will enhance the price and protect the cultivator against the casualities incident to foreign markets.”

In his seventh annual message he says: Having formerly communicated my views to Congress respecting the encouragement which ought to be given to our manufactures, and the principle on which it should be founded, I have only to add that those views remain unchanged. I recommend a review of the tariff for the purpose of affording such additional protection to those articles which we are prepared to manufacture, or which are more immediately connected with the defense and independence of the country.”

Here, then, are the views in brief of our first five Presidents, and the foremost men of the years in which the Tariff Act of 1789 was a law. We find no hint of dissatisfaction with protection; no suggestion of a repeal of the law, and no intimation of a modification of the tariff laws, except to give them “ a prompt and constant guardianship” and “additional protection to those articles we are prepared to manufacture," etc.

Let us now return to our "Historical Statement,” and learn, if we may, what were some of the resulting benefits from the new Tariff Law.

BENEFITS OF THE TARIFF OF 1789.- Agriculture became more extensive and prosperous; commerce increased with wonderful rapidity; old industries were revived, and many new ones were established in all parts of the country; our merchant-navy was revived and multiplied; all branches of domestic trade were prosperous; our revenue soon became sufficient to pay the expenses of the government, and give relief to its creditors; the people again became contented and industrious; and the whole country seemed to be, and was, on the high road to great national wealth and prosperity.

No material changes in the law (f 1789 were enacted till 1812, and the general prosperity above indicated continued through that period.

1808.-EMBARGO ACT.-This Act has no relation whatever to the Tariff Act; neither was it a Tariff Act; but, as in tracing the history of the Tariff from 1789, free traders often refer to this Act as "Tariff legislation prohibiting all importation, followed by universal disaster," it may be well to see just what the truth is about it.

They (the free traders) intend to convey the impression that this absolute prohibition of importations in 1808 was passed in the interest of protection; than which nothing could be further from the truth.

This "prohibition " was the celebrated "Embargo Act" of 1808, and grew out of the war between Great Britain and France.

Each of these countries had prohibited all commerce with the other, established blockades, and authorized the search of neutral vessels. Se outrageous was their conduct that President Jefferson wrote that "Eng

land was a den of pirates and France a den of thieves ;" and at his suggestion Congress passed the Embargo Act as a measure of retaliation against these nations. But as our home productions were then quite limited, it was soon found that the Embargo Act was more hurtful to us than to our enemies; and within a year, at Jefferson's suggestion, it was repealed. But in all the discussion that led to its enactment or repeal, nothing was said about “tariff" or "protection." But even that Act was not without its compensation; for it gave a great stimulus to the establishment of new industries and manufactures for making those articles which formerly were imported, but which under that prohibition had to be made here or not at all.

1812.-THE TARIFF DUTIES RAISED.-In 1812, as a measure to raise money to carry on the war with England, the tariff duties were nearly doubled, greatly to the benefit of the country and of its home industries; -the increase to be taken off after the close of the war.

This was the period of our second war with Great Britain; and of course our importations were very small, as England would sell us nothing, and, with her war vessels, strove to destroy all our importations from other countries.

The very fact that our importations were thus all stopped, or nearly so, compelled us to erect factories and foundries of our own, and start new industries to supply our necessities; and notwithstanding this tremendous strain and demand upon our resources, caused by the three years' war from 1812, we made rapid progress in national wealth and manufacturing ability during this period. Of course, there was much of distress and hard times, war always produces these. New England shipping was somewhat disturbed, but New England was more than compensated by the great increase that came to her manufactures during this period. In a special message President Madison earnestly asked of Congress, "deliberate consideration of the means to preserve and promote the manufactures which have sprung into existence and attained an unparalleled maturity throughout the United States during the period of the European wars."

CHAPTER III.

SECOND FREE TRADE PERIOD-1816-1824.

1816.-REPEAL OF THE TARIFF.—But in 1816, by one of those inexplicable changes in public opinion, probably a mere desire for a change similar to that of 1884, there was a decided re-action from the high tariff rates of 1812, and in favor of the Democratic Party and its economic ideas, which have always leaned toward free trade or very low tariff rates. The law of 1789 and the amendment of 1812 were repealed, and lower duties substituted therefor. And while there were some protective features retained in the Act of 1816, it was nevertheless a very wide and dis

astrous departure from the tariff rates of 1812; and at the best was only "moderately protective."

WHY THE TARIFF OF 1816 FAILED.-But there was some extraordinary reasons why the Tariff of 1816 was a failure and why its rates were insufficient.

At the close of the war between the United States and Great Britain, England and English manufacturers made two discoveries which were very startling and disagreeable to them. First, That having been deprived by the Embargo Act and the subsequent war of the American markets, the British manufacturers found their warehouses at the close of the war full to bursting with unsold productions of various kinds, for which they were very anxious, but unable, to find a market. Second, That the Americans compelled by the same reasons to rely upon themselves instead of the English manufacturers for their supplies during this period, had established successfully a large number of home industries, and were, by this means, able to a great degree to supply their own market.

In this dilemma, England saw that she must act promptly and crush out these young American industries, or her American market would be forever lost, and her manufacturing industries permanently crippled. So she resolved to flood this country with her goods then on hand, many of which were old and out of fashion, far below cost. It was a matter of so much importance that it was discussed in Parliament, and Mr. (afterward Lord) Brougham declared in the House of Commons in 1816 "It is well worth while to incur a loss upon the first exportation, in order, by the glut, to stifle in the cradle those infant manufactures in the United States, which the war has forced into existence."

This policy was decided upon, and Great Britain poured her fabrics and acculmulated stocks of goods into our markets in an overwhelming torrent and far below cost. The tariff of 1816 was intended as a barrier against this inundation, and under ordinary circumstances would have proved such. But it was a matter of life or death with the English manufacturers, and so they continued to pour in their goods upon us at prices far lower than we could make them; and true to British custom they perservered in this policy till our own industries were very nearly ruined.

The foreign goods imported at this period were more than twice the quantity that could be consumed. Niles, in his history, says: "It is notorious that great sums of money were expended by the British to destroy our flocks of sheep, that they might thereby ruin our manufactories. They bought up and immediately slaughtered great numbers of sheep; they bought our best machinery and sent it off to England, and hired our best mechanics and most skillful workmen to go to England, simply to get them out of this country, and so hinder and destroy our existing and prospective manufactures."

RESULTS OF THE REPEAL.—Then great depression in all branches of business at once followed. Bankruptcy soon became general, and financial ruin was everywhere present. It could not be otherwise. Carey,