IV. THE ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES WHICH GUIDED ROBERT J. WALKER IN PREPARINGTHE TARIFF OF 1846. In suggesting improvements in the revenue laws the following principles have been adopted: 1. That no more money should be collected than is necessary for the wants of the Government economically administered. 2. That no duty be imposed on any article above the lowest rate which will yield the largest amount of revenue. 3. That below such rate discrimination may be made, descending in the scale of duties; or, for imperative reasons, the article may be placed in the list of those free: from all duty. 4. That the maximum rate of duty should be imposed on luxuries. 5. That all minimums, and all specific duties, should be abolished and ad' valorem duties substituted in their place. Care being taken to guard against fraudulent invoices and undervaluation, and to assess the duty upon the actual market. value. 6 That the duty should be so imposed as to operate as equally as possible throughout the Union, discriminating neither for nor against any class or section. In one of his annual messages Mr. Jefferson recommended to Congress "the suppression of the duties on salt." A large portion of this duty is exhausted in heavy expenses of measuring salt, and in large sums paid for fishing bounties and allowances in lieu of the drawback of the duty, both which expenditures would fall with a repeal of the duty; which repeal, therefore, can cause no considerable reduction of the revenue. Salt is a necessary of life, and should be as free from tax as air and water. It is used in large quantities by the farmer and planter; and to the poor this tax operates most oppressively not only in the use of the article itself, but as combined with salted provisions. The salt made abroad by solar evaporation is also most pure and wholesome, and, as conservative of health, should be exempt from taxation. THE POWER TO LEVY TAXES FOR REVENUES. The whole power to collect taxes, whether direct or indirect, is conferred by thesame clause of the Constitution. The words are: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." A direct tax or excise, not for revenue but for protection, clearly would not be within the legitimate object of taxation, and yet it would be as much so as a duty imposed for a similar purpose. The power is "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." A duty must be laid only that it may be collected; and if it is so imposed that it can not be collected in whole or in part it violates the declared object of the granted power. To lay all duties so high that none of them could be collected would be a prohibitory tariff. To lay a duty on any one article so high that it could not be collected would be a prohibitory tariff upon that article. If a duty of 100 per cent. were imposed upon all or upon a number of articles, so as to diminish the revenue upon all or any of them it would operate as a partial prohibition. A partial and a total prohibition are alike in violation of the true object of the taxing power. They only differ in degree, and not in principle. If the revenue limit may be exceeded by 1 per cent., it may be exceeded by 100. If it may be exceeded upon any one article, it may be exceeded on all; and there is no escape from this conclusion, but in contending that Congress may lay duties on all articles so high as to collect no revenue and operate as a total prohibition. The Constitution declares that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." A tariff bill, it is conceded, can only originate in the House, becauseit is a bill for raising revenue. That is the only proper object of such a bill. A tariff is a bill to "lay and collect taxes." It is a bill for "raising revenue;" and whenever it departs from that object, in whole or in part, either by total or partial prohibition, it violates the purpose of the granted power. A PROTECTIVE TARIFF WORKS TO THE BENEFIT OF CAPITAL. A protective tariff is a question regarding the enhancement of the profits of capital. That is its object, and not to augment the wages of labor, which would reduce those profits. It is a question of percentage, and is to decide whether money invested in our manufactures shall, by special legislation, yield a profit of 10, 20 or 30 per cent, or whether it shall remain satisfied with a dividend equal to that accruing from the same capital invested in agriculture, commerce or navigation. The present tariff is unjust, and unequal as well in its details as in the principles upon which it is founded. On some articles the duties are entirely prohibitory, and on others there is a partial prohibition. It discriminates in favor of manufactures, and against agriculture, by imposing many higher duties upon the manufactured fabric than upon the agricultural product out of which it is made. It discriminates in favor of the manufacturer, and against the merchant, by injurious restrictions upon trade and commerce, and against the ship-building and navigating interest by heavy duties on almost every article used in building or navigating vessels. It discriminates in favor of manufactures, and against exports, which are as truly the product of American industry as manufactures. It discriminates in favor of the rich and against the poor, by high duties upon nearly all the necessaries of life, and by minimum and specific duties, rendering the tax upon the real value much higher on the cheaper than upon the finer article. If the marshal were sent by the Federal Government to collect a direct tax from the whole people, to be paid over to manufacturing capitalists to enable them to sustain their business or realize a larger profit, it would be the same in effect as the protective duty, which, when analyzed in its simplest elements and reduced to actual results, is a mere substraction of so much money from the people to increase the resources of the protected classes. Legislation for classes is against the doctrine of equal rights, repugnant to the spirit of our free institutions, and, it is apprehended by many, may become but another form for privileged orders under the name of protection, instead of privilege-indicated here not by rank or title, but by profits and dividends extracted from the many, by taxes upon them, for the benefit of the few. CHAPTER XIV. THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THE CAREFULNESS AND CONSERVATISM WITH WHICH THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN MANAGED. Asserting the Rights of Citizens in Great Britain and Other When the United States of America declared their independence, and assumed their place among the sovereign states of the world, their form of government as well as their geographical position, rendered it proper and expedient that they should proceed to work out their destiny free from such entanglements with the monarchies of the old world as would prevent the new Republic from freely shaping its policy to suit the needs and conditions of its independent and unique position. With that marvelous foresight which characterized their proceedings, the founders of our Government, seeing the wisdom and necessity of such a course, did not fail, by their acts and declarations, firmly to fix our policy in the direction of independence and freedom from constraint. "The great rule of conduct for us," said Washington, "in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation." The same idea was tersely expressed by Mr. Jefferson in his first inaugural address, when he described the true policy of his government as "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." * * * As a logical result of this policy, a Democratic President, Mr. Monroe, promulgated the doctrine which bears his name, that as we would not intervene in the affairs of Europe, the United States should not consent to the further interference of European governments in the affairs of this continent for the purpose of spreading their system here and of controlling the destinies of the United States and of its sister Republics in America. This principle was adopted by the Government of the United States, not merely as a matter of safety. It was also a recognition of the right of those Republics to manage their own affairs and to settle their own disputes as independent States, free from the dictation of foreign governments, including that of the United States. CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES. Congress has recently passed an act, which the President has approved, directing him to invite representatives of the Governments of America south of the United States to participate in a congress to be held in the city of Washington in the year 1889, to consider questions of common concern. The great obstacle in the way of the success of that conference is the hostile sentiment created in the peoples to which the act refers, by the unwarrantable and reckless course of a Republican Secretary of State, who, by his utter disregard of the doctrines of international law, and of the moral principles which govern the intercourse of nations, sowed the seeds of discord and alienation among those whom nature has made our neighbors, and whom just and honorable dealing should make our friends. To "guano diplomacy," the name popularly given to that unprecedented thing in the history of the world, a foreign policy based upon fraudulent claims, the discovery of Mr. Blaine, we are indebted for a condition of things, which would seem incredible if it were not proved by official records. While It must bring the blush of shame to the cheek of every true American, yet it is a fact in our history which we are compelled to face when we consider that the election of a Republican President would probably mean the revival of the policy, and with the history of which the country was made familiar during the Congressional investigation of the matter and by the developments of the last campaign. II. BLAINE'S PRESSURE OF BOGUS CLAIMS. HOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS USED TO ANNOY AND OPPRESS THE SMALL REPUBLICS OF SOUTH AMERICA. Among the actors under Mr. Blaine in this reckless and disastrous guano spec. ulation was Mr. Levi Morton, then United States Minister to France and now the Republican candidate for Vice-President. As a part of the scheme of plunder against Peru and Chili, Mr. Blaine had given his support to Garcia Calderon as President of Peru as against other Peruvian aspirants, and had instructed the American Minister to recognize his government. No sooner was Calderon in office than the bogus Shipherd claims which have been above described, were presented to him for acceptance. At the same time, as another part of the scheme, a French company called the "Credit Industrielle " appeared upon the scene and expressed a willingness to pay the Shipherd claims and take from Calderon as security an assignment of all the guano and nitrate deposits of Peru. This French company had first made a contract with the banking house of Morton, Bliss & Co., of which the present Republican Vice-Presidential candidate was then President as well as United States Minister to France, under which that house was to have a monopoly of all American shipments of nitrate and guano from Peru on a commission of 5 per cent. Being thus connected with the scheme, Mr. Morton then proceeded, under the instructions of Mr. Blaine, to induce the Government of the French Republic to recognize the Calderon Government. This was a direct invitation to a European Government to interfere in the affairs of an American Republic "for the purpose of oppressing it," which Mr. Monroe, in 1823, in the famous doctrine that bears his name, declared that the United States would never permit any European Government to do. The Calderon Government did not represent a majority of the people of Peru, and Mr. Morton was compelled to report that the French Government refused to be a party to the plot to force it upon Peru for speculative purposes. In a letter bearing date October 20, 1881, Mr. Morton reported to Mr. Blaine the result of an interview with President Grévy as follows: "I remarked that the United States and many other countries had already recognized the Calderon government, to which he replied that France had not yet done so, because it seemed to her that the Calderon government had rather the support of the Chilian government than of the people of Peru; but that as soon as it appeared evident that it was nationa in its character, France would recognize it with pleasure." Mr. Blaine did not even then give up the hope of inducing France to recognize Calderon, and on the 14th of November, 1881, telegraphed for further information. To this Mr. Morton hopelessly replied: "The indications of recognition of the Calderon government seem less favorable." Thus ended the endeavors of Messrs. Blaine and Morton to induce France to enter into their speculation. A PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM FOR $50,000,000. But the adventures of Mr. Blaine, as a promoter of bogus claims, was not confined to the west coast of South America, but extended all the way around to Brazil against the government of which country he presented, “at the request of S. B. Elkins, Esquire," a baseless claim for $50,525,000. The original claimant was a man named James C. Jewett, and the circumstances of his claim are fully set forth in Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 133, 48th Congress, 1st session. As appears by that document one B. J. Newburg, hearing of what Jewett was doing, protested to the Department of State that Jewett had been "stealing his thunder." He alleged that he himself was the discoverer of the guano deposits claimed by Jewett, who heard him talking about them and proceeded to make up a claim to them. The case was first brought to the notice of the State Department in December, 1879, Mr. Evarts being Secretary of State, by the diplomatic representative of Brazil in Washington, who transmitted to the Department a protest in which he stated that Jewett had addressed to the Brazilian legation a copy of various affidavits alleging the discovery in the territory of Brazil of certain guano deposits. He said that Jewett had already sent a vessel to bring away a cargo, and still another was about to sail, although the previous consent of the Brazilian Government to the removal of the guano had not been obtained. About the same time Jewett presented his case to the State Department in the form of a claim against Brazil, but Mr. Evarts declined upon the evidence to do more than instruct our Minister to Brazil to aid Jewett in any way that might be convenient and proper to obtain a concession. This concession Jewett never received. A temporary permit for the removal of a cargo, issued by the Brazilian Minister of Agriculture nearly four months after Jewett had |
