never more unstable than during Van Buren's administration. Speculation, over trading and rotten currency had their effect upon the public credit at home and abroad; so that although by 1842 there was a large deficit in the Treasury, it was impossible to borrow money, and the revenue from imports was already inadequate to the wants of the government, and according to the terms of the compromise, decreasing. A bill had already passed to distribute among the States the revenue derived from the sale of lands, provided the tariff should not be raised in 1842. But even that inducement and the binding nature of the compromise of 1833 could have little weight against the bankruptcy which stared the country in the face. To abide by the compromise under the circumstances, seemed sure death. Therefore Congress passed a tariff bill raising all duties twenty per cent., and made the land bill a dead letter.

From that time on for many years the general tendency of legislation was toward a reduction in duties. During fifteen years succeeding the establishment of the tariff of 1842 the country was racked with internal commotions-boundary disputes with Great Britain, annexation schemes, war with Mexico, the admission of new States, conquests of southwestern territory, etc but the color line" run through all the tumults of that period, and daily threatened to become red with blood, as the South saw the free territory extend and crowd her toward the sea. The patriots of the country North and South vainly endeavored to suppress discussion on the slavery question. Henry Clay at last came forth with his Compromise which Whigs and Democrats agreed to regard as the final settlement of the whole matter. But in the meantime around the positive leaders of the controversy there were forming little knots of independent thinkers and workers. First there was a liberal party, then a Garrison party. Next a few Whigs and Democrats commenced to fall away from their organizations. Finally the different factions left the dead issues behind them, forgot that they had been aught but brothers, and the living party of Republicanism absorbed the Free Soilers, most of the Whigs and many of the Democrats. It arose as a grand moral agent, a glorious "oneidea" party, and found blankly opposed to it a party with two ideas, slavery and free trade. Republicanism was destined to one more defeat before entering upon a long career of glorious achievement. Compromises were of no more avail, and happily Henry Clay did not live to see the day when the North and the South became rent asunder. It would appear that, for the present, those who were in authority did not dare to urge upon the South both high protection and anti-slavery measures; so that, as stated, legislation tended toward a low tariff.

A few years previous to the panic of 1857 the exodus to the West was at its height, and internal improvement was the rage. The country was flooded with paper, upon which foundation rested pioneer railroads and canals. But the people at length came to their senses, and the financial crash of 1857 was the result. Confidence at home and abroad was almost destroyed. Imports decreased, exports decreased, business of all kinds decreased. Clouds of war threatened to drift to us from abroad, rotten currency poisoned the channels of trade, political dissensions interfered with home industries, the foundations of the nation trembled with the coming revolution. All these disturbing elements combined during the fifteen years preceding the great panic of 1857 to check the country's prosperity, despite her greater freedom of trade.

By the latter part of 1860 it became evident that the soul of Henry Clay on the tariff question was still marching on, and that a bill was to be introduced which was the beau ideal of high protection. As a war measure it was a masterly stroke of statesmanship on the part of the North; for it was a declaration of war! In December South Carolina seceded from the Union. In March the constitution of the Confederacy was adopted, making a revenue tariff one of its cardinal principles.*

Most of the Southern representatives having withdrawn, the Morrill tariff bill became. law April 1, 1861. It aroused a storm of indignation, not only in the South but in England, and undoubtedly it hastened the war. During the next four years several high tariff bills were passed by the Federal Government as war measures.

Up to 1858 the record of " tinkering" which marked legislative history on this question is long and tedious. It is enough to the present purpose to say that the Morrill spirit permeated it all. In 1870 a slight reduction commenced. A ten per cent. reduction followed in 1872, which was restored in 1875. The average percentage up to March, 1883, when the last tariff bill was passed, equaled about 42 per cent. According to a report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, made in April, 1884, the act of the previous year caused a reduction on the average ad-valorem rate of duty on imports of about six per cent.

It is not to the present purpose to discuss in detail the recent attempt made at a horizontal reduction of the tariff. It is well known, however,

*Article I, Section 8, provides that Congress "shall lay and collect taxes, imposts and excises for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense and carry on the government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industries."

that in May, 1884, the form of protection under which the country now suffers, was nearly overthrown. The split on the question was far more marked between Eastern and Western Democrats than between Eastern and Western Republicans. But the Republicans, as a party, assumed the aggressive in the succeeding campaign, smothered the tariff issue, and having no other live matter at home upon which to stand, called upon foreign countries for relief, and again revived the old Federal idea of a grand naval establishment and a "brilliant foreign policy." Whether or not its leaders were inspired with true American patriotism in marking out this policy, it is quite certain that it would effectually dispose of that "surplus revenue" which is now a standing protest against the continuation of the present protective duties.

66

With the exception of this proposed grand naval establishment there were few marked points of difference between the Republican and Democratic platforms. They both declared against the importation of cheap labor," and although the Republicans issued a high sounding manifesto against the imposition of duties " for revenue only," it is quite singular that, though one platform stood for economy and the other for glory, they both solemnly bound themselves to arrange the tariff so that labor and capital should be equally satisfied. The Democratic platform, in its endeavor to compromise between the protectionists of the East and the free traders of the West, may have actually relegated the tariff issue to secondary importance for the time. The party certainly showed its cowardice by failing to definitely declare itself in answer to the specific requests made by its million of would-be supporters within the pale of the labor organizations. Assuredly, in trying to bind the party together, its statesmen, of whom much was expected, too closely followed the lead of the Republicans. The platform, in a word, was a grievous disappointment, and was wholly dishonest, because it was purposely indefinite. In marked and refreshing contrast to it was the minority report presented by Benjamin F. Butler, unfortunately not in rapport with the general spirit pervading the Chicago convention. But the declaration of principles which he presented in so able a manner, clothed in such direct and forcible language, was labeled "General Butler's Platform," and consequently buried out of sight. It was quite certain, as the matter stood, that the campaign would be fought upon personal grounds, and be decided by the strength of individual following which the party leaders might draw to themselves. Thus it has been up to date. The demand of the Republican party that their leader must be a man of "personal magnetism," was charged with great political wisdom. The Democratic party also has

VOL. XII.-No. 6.-34

thrown away its grand opportunity of reviving the glory of the old organization, when campaigns of principle were fought by men of less ability than she now reckons among her leaders.

There is, however, one criticism upon the policy of the Republican party which deserves extended notice. It is thus embodied in a plank of the Democratic platform:

“Under a quarter century of Republican rule and policy, despite our manifest advantage over all other nations in high-paid labor, favorable climates, and teeming soils; despite freedom of trade among all these United States; despite their population by the foremost races of men, and an annual immigration of the young, thrifty and adventurous of all nations; despite our freedom here from the inherited burdens of life and industry in Old World monarchies-their costly war navies, their vast tax-consuming, non-producing standing armies; despite twenty years of peace-that Republican rule and policy have managed to surrender to Great Britain, along with our commerce, the control of the markets of the world."

As all Americans ought to fully realize, in comparison with England we have ceased to be a great commercial nation, and are rapidly being degraded from our once proud position of food supplier to the world. The assertion is ventured that should a high tariff and grain gambling be continued in this country for the next ten years, there will go up a universal cry of distress from the producers of cereals in the West. Even now Chicago does not control the wheat market of the world, and America is no longer indispensable as a feeder to England and Europe. The former is tired of having her manufactures restricted by us, while at the same time she buys freely of our grain. India and Russia together nearly equal the United States in wheat-producing capacity, and year by year Europe and Asia are being bound with railroads. Into these countries and into the prolific territory of Australia, into Argentine Republic and South Africa, improved machinery is being introduced, and upon their products Great Britain and Europe are depending more and more. That the policy of the party which has been in power for the past quarter of a century is responsible for this decadence in commerce and agriculture no one can deny. As a consequence the agricultural West is being firmly set against the manufacturing East. Farmers look upon manufacturers as a class favored at their expense, and ere long may consider them as enemies. The troubles of 1833 may repeat themselves, except that the West instead of the South will be arrayed against the East. The responsibility for this sectional and class antagonism rests with the Republican party.

The two great parties must crumble unless they fairly meet the industrial and commercial problems which are forced upon them. For the past

few years each has attempted to smother these issues under an avalanche of honeyed words cast upon capitalist and laborer alike. But, as in the case of slavery, the time will come when there can be no more compromises; when morality and humanity will force themselves into politics, and voters must advance like men and declare plainly where they stand. Among these issues free trade and protection will soon appear as paramount. The elements are combining into bodies of nearly equal strength, and within a decade the decisive battle will be fought. Already are grouped in sentiment, as they will soon be in action, the free workingmen, the broad-minded and patriotic thinkers of the East, and the farmers of the West, with their political representatives; on the other hand appear the powerful manufactories, corporations and monopolies-agricultural and otherwise with the many voters and able minds which they control.

The time is coming when a man will be ashamed to say that he is a free trader in theory, but that the country is too much of an infant yet to put his principles into practice. The Carey philosophy, which looks upon free trade as the ideal, and protection the means of arriving at it, does not now apply to our stalwart manhood. Even the Massachusetts school of free traders, the members of which take their position more as anti-protectionists than as positivists, will give place to those who stand for the abolition of all burdens upon trade, commerce and manufactures, and for the imposition of taxes for revenue upon articles of luxury, upon gigantic incomes, upon hoarded and unimproved lands, upon stocks and bonds, and all idle capital.

M.G. Cutter

CHICAGO, ILL.