our markets with their goods "as if to the attack of a fortress." To shut out some of these goods and protect American manufactures a duty of twenty-five per cent. was placed upon woolen and cotton goods, and thirty per cent. upon certain other goods, notably upon carriages, shoes and paper. These high duties were not imposed for the sole purpose of raising more revenue; they were imposed for the protection of the home market.

By 1824 a change had taken place in the attitude of the different sections of the country in respect to the tariff. The South had become an important producer of cotton, and it felt that the tariff interfered with the profits of the trade in cotton exports. The South, therefore, was opposed to a protective tariff. The West, on the other hand, was anxious for manufacturing centers in which to dispose of agricultural products and favored a protective tariff. The growth of manufactures in New England and the increase of the iron business in Pennsylvania gave a firmer hold to the protective policy in those quarters. As a result of these various interests the tariff rates were increased in 1824 to an average of thirty-seven per cent.

Political considerations had entered into the tariff act of 1824. In 1828, when Congress passed a new tariff act, complications arising out of the presidential fight gave the bill a still more distinct political complexion. The act as passed increased the tariff on manufactures to an average of forty per cent. and increased considerably the duty on raw materials. The tariff of 1828 was bitterly opposed in the Southern States, because in those States there were few manufacturing interests to be protected, and because it was to the interest of the South to have free trade with England, the principal customer for Southern cotton, hemp and tobacco. The tariff of 1828-the Tariff of Abominations it was called-was accordingly overhauled in 1832. Rates were reduced, and the attempt was made to conciliate the South by reductions on goods needed on the plantations. The duty on cotton goods remained the same

as before, and the rate on woolen goods was increased to fifty per cent. There was still a distinct adherence to the protective principle.

The South was by no means appeased. South Carolina even threatened secession from the Union. To allay this intense opposition Clay came forward and pushed through Congress the compromise tariff of 1832. . This bill provided for a gradual reduction of the tariff, so that by 1842 the average duty had become reduced to twenty per cent. This rate did not produce enough revenue, and in 1842 duties were increased to the level of the tariff of 1832.

In 1846, when the revenues were more than were needed, Robert L. Walker, the Secretary of the Treasury, proposed and had carried through Congress a bill which brought a general reduction in the tariff rates. Cotton goods, woolen goods and iron were affected chiefly by the reduction. A tariff bill in 1857 reduced the tariff ratio to a point lower than it had been since the inauguration of the protective system in 1816. The panic of 1857 brought about a falling off in the revenues of the country. In 1861 the Morrill bill was passed to remedy this difficulty, although the chief motive back of this bill was protection to manufactures.

The Civil War brought frequent increases in the duties. The climax of tariff legislation appeared in the act of 1864. This act was intended to increase the revenues and to establish the protective system more firmly than ever. The average rate of duties was increased to 47.06 per cent. Between 1864 and 1890 various attacks were made upon the protective policy, but without marked success.

The McKinley bill, which Congress passed in 1890, carried the protective principle beyond any of the preceding acts. A slight reaction came in 1893 when the Democratic party was restored to power, but the resulting tariff bill (the Wilson bill, 1894) introduced only one striking innovation-the removal of the duty on wool. In 1897 the Republican party returned to power and passed the Dingley

bill, which in some directions went further with the protective principle than the McKinley bill went.1

The above sketch shows four things: (1) the protective principle, in the long run, has gained ground, (2) the tariff has always been an important issue in politics, (3) it is exceedingly difficult to frame a tariff law that is satisfactory to all sections, (4) our tariff policy has been a fluctuating one.

It is regrettable that our tariff regulations are not more stable. Commercial interests doubtless suffer more from repeated changes in the tariff than they would from a permanently high tariff or from a permanently low tariff.

Regulations of Foreign Shipping. In its regulations affecting vessels engaged in foreign trade Congress has always aimed to protect and promote American shipping interests. Only vessels built within the United States and wholly belonging to citizens thereof can be registered as American,

1 In 1909 the Payne Tariff slightly reduced some of the schedules of the Dingley Law. The operation of the present tariff may be fairly well learned from the following table prepared by the Bureau of Statistics.

The table shows the customs revenue for the fiscal year 1910. The eleven classes of articles enumerated in the table paid about three fourths of the entire customs duties.

unless by a special act of Congress. Moreover, unless a vessel is officered by Americans it cannot fly the American flag. Vessels engaged in foreign commerce must as a rule pay into the federal treasury an annual tonnage tax-a tax on the carrying capacity estimated in tons-but this tax is made to fall more heavily on foreign vessels than on those registered as American. Foreign vessels cannot engage in the coasting trade, or in trade between the United States and its insular possessions. For the benefit of commerce as well as for the saving of human life the federal government supports the life-saving service which patrols the coast and sends out life-boats and throws out life-lines to save the passengers and cargoes of vessels in distress.

The Regulation of Immigration. Since passengers as well as goods are included in the term commerce, immigration is regulated by Congress. During the greater part of our history we encouraged immigration, for in the development of our country we needed all the brain and muscle we could get. Had it not been for the millions of immigrants who have come to us from England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, France, Italy, a large part of our country would still be a wilderness.

About 1880 Americans began to feel that immigration on a large scale was no longer desirable, and demanded that restraints be placed upon the admission of foreigners. First the Chinese were excluded. In 1882 Congress, in defiance of a treaty with China, prohibited Chinese laborers from coming into the United States, and but few of these people have entered since the exclusion law was passed. In the same year Congress ordered that the character of all immigrants be looked into and commanded that convicts, lunatics, idiots and other persons not able to take care of themselves should not be admitted into the United States, but should be sent back at the expense of the owners of the vessels upon which they came. By

a law of 1885 it is made unlawful for certain classes of laborers to enter the United States, if they have previously entered into a contract to perform labor here, and any person brought here under a contract to perform labor can be sent back at the expense of the vessel which brings him here. As a further hindrance to immigration the tax imposed on immigrants has been increased from fifty cents per head to four dollars per head. These restrictive laws have had the effect of checking immigration to some extent, but they have by no means solved the immigration problem: they have by no means been successful in keeping out all undesirable foreigners and letting in only those whose presence is beneficial.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

1. How is power in respect to commerce divided?

2. What is the extent of the power which Congress has over foreign commerce?

3. What is meant by free trade? by protection? Give the leading argument for free trade; for protection.

4. Sketch the course of tariff legislation in the United States.

5. What may be learned from the history of our tariff?

6. What regulation has Congress made in respect to foreign shipping?

7. Give an account of our immigration policy.

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES

1. Name the articles of commerce which can be easily produced in the United States. Name those articles which cannot be easily produced.

2. Compare graphically the volume of the commerce of the United States with that of each of the leading countries of the world. (See "Review of World's Commerce' issued by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce; also "Statesman's Year Book."')

3. What class of business men suffer when the tariff is suddenly raised when it is suddenly reduced?

4. What is meant by reciprocity? What are subsidies? bounties? 5. To what four countries do we sell the most? From what four countries do we buy the most?