Britain in 1812. On July 1, 1812, the Tariff Act was passed, which became a law immediately.

The passage of this Act was strongly urged by Madison in his message to the Twelfth Congress :- "As a means to preserve and promote the manufactures which have sprung into existence and attained an unparalleled maturity through. out the United States during the period of the European wars." The younger leaders of the Republican party took up Madison's request and were prepared to go to any length to grant it. Calhoun and Lowndes joined their logic to Clay's eloquence in favor of the doctrine that protection to home industries should no longer occupy a place secondary to the revenue idea. South Carolina became the highest protection State in the Union, England having levied a duty on raw cotton. The entire Republican party swung away from its strict construction notions and became such liberal interpreters as that they quoted with the utmost favor the report of Hamilton upon which the earlier Tariff Acts were based. The Federals were dazed with the situation, and, failing to see anything good in their opponents, quite forgot their own traditions, and swung, under the lead of Webster, quite to the anti-protection side of the controversy.

Out of the confused situation came the "American Idea" and the Whig party, which was Clay's outlet from the strict construction columns. The Tariff Act of the session-a Republican, or, as some have it, a Democratic Act-marks the highest rates of duty reached from the foundation. of the government up till 1842. It practically doubled the rates existing before. Sugar went from 21⁄2 cents per pound to 5 cents; coffee from 5 cents to 10 cents; tea from 18 cents to 36; pig iron from 171⁄2 per cent. to 30 per cent.; bar iron from 17% per cent. to 30; glass from 221⁄2 per cent. to 40; manufactures of cotton from 171⁄2 per cent. to

30; woolens from 17 per cent. to 30; silk from 15 per cent. to 25.

The Embargo Act of 1808, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, and the highly protective Tariff Act of 1812,constituted a series of restrictive measures which had the efficacy of prohibitive duties. They gave an enormous stimulus to all branches of industry whose products had before been imported. Establishments for the manufacture of cottons, woolens, iron, glass, pottery and other articles, sprang up as if by magic. The success of this extreme protection formed the basis of that powerful movement which subsequently became the heritage of the Whig party, and which had for its object the decided limitation of foreign competition both as to manufactures and commerce.

TARIFF ACT OF 1816.

The logic of the Tariff Act of 1816 is not understood by economists, nor can it be accounted for by any one except upon the theory that having passed through a war, the country would probably settle back into some such condition as existed prior to 1808. The controlling element in Congress was still the young element, the element responsible for the war and therefore responsible for its results. They had proven themselves avowed protectionists by the passage of the Tariff Act of 1812, and by the favor with which they regarded the new manufactures which had arisen. They were still willing to assist them, for they clung to fair duties in the Act of April 27, 1816, on those goods in which the most interest was felt, as in textile fabrics.

But here the fatality which overhung the Act came in. Cotton and woolen goods were to pay a duty of 25 per cent. -a protective duty-till 1819. After that they were to pay 20 per cent. On some other classes of goods the duties

were decreased directly, on others increased. As to the textiles, Calhoun urged strongly the argument in favor of protecting young industries, and at the same time limiting the protection, after a period when they ought to be on their !feet.

As a whole the Act of 1816 was protective, but it looked to a period only three years off, when it would no longer be So. This was its misfortune. It prepared foreign nations for our market. Though our breadstuffs, provisions, cotton and every product of the soil were high in price; though wages and rents were high; the currency was very weak and unsettled. Home competition had reduced the price of our manufactured products. The manufacturers of Great Britain found their warehouses bursting with wares. They looked with awe on the American situation, which revealed to them the fact that our home industries had robbed them of a market. This must not be. Those industries are only tentative. By 1819, when the duties of 1816 reach their minimum, they can no longer survive. We will begin the crushing process now. Said Lord Brougham in the House of Commons, "It is well worth while to incur a loss upon our 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."

Great Britain began to unload her surplus manufactures upon our shores at far below cost. They were goods that were not new, nor fashionable, nor in demand at home. The protective features of the Act of 1816 were insufficient to stay the flood. More than twice the quantity were imported that could be consumed. Great depression in business set in Bankruptcy became general. The near approach of 1819, when the minimum rates of duty should go into effect, but encouraged the inflow of foreign products. Says

Born at Lewiston, Me., September 2, 1831; graduated at Bowdoin College, 1850; educated for the bar; elected to State Legislature, 1861, 1862, 1867; Mayor of Lewiston, 1866-67; Attorney-General, 1867-6869; member of Republican National Executive Committee, 1872-7680; Presidential Elector, 1864; Delegate to Republican National Conventions, 1872-76-80; elected member of 42d, 43d, 44th, 45th, 46th and 47th Congresses; elected to succeed James G. Blaine in United States Senate in 1880; re-elected Senator in 1883, 1888 and 1895; Chairman of Committee on Commerce, and a member of Committee on Foreign Relations, and other important Committees.

Admitted to practice at Logansport, Ind., 1849; Judge of Common Pleas, 1854, and of Circuit Court, 1856, both of which he resigned; inember of Ind. Legislature, 1853 and 1858; elected to U. S. Senate, 1863, for unexpired term of Jesse D. Bright; member of Ind. Gen. Assembly and Speaker of body, 1874-75; Commissioner for Revision of Indiana Laws; U. S. Dist. Atty., 1886-87; Delegate-at-Large to Dem. Convention, 1888; elected U. S. Senator, 1887 and 1893, member of Committees on Census, Foreign Relations, Land Claims, Privileges and Elections, Transportation, and U. S. University.