EXTENSION OF THE LOAN; TARIFF REVISION. an exchequer to become law. That body would not even give it decent consideration, and every attempt of the chairman of the committee to introduce his bill ended in failure.* Meanwhile the state of the Treasury was rapidly becoming serious. On March 1 the Secretary of the Treasury wrote to Tyler, stating that on June 1 the deficit would be more than $3,250,000 and suggesting that the $12,000,000 loan be increased by another loan of $5,000,000. On March 8 Tyler submitted this suggestion to the House with a message asking for prompt and speedy action.† That body took no action, and on March 25 Tyler sent another message requesting "serious attention to the condition of the finances" and urging that the duties on imports be increased and that the distribution act be repealed. On the last day of March the House, therefore, passed a bill extending the term of the loan to 20 years and increasing the amount by $5,000,000. The bill was then sent to the Senate, but not before April 15 did that body pass it. It was then sent to the President and became law on April 15 by his signature.|| In the meantime the Committee of Ways and Means and the Committee on Manufactures had been working on a bill to revise the compromise 71 tariff of 1833. The Committee on Manufactures completed its work first, and on the last day of March presented two reports and a bill.* The Committee framed the bill so as to lay a general ad valorem duty of 30 per cent. where the duty was on that principle, and laying specific duties for the security of such interests as could not be preserved without them. All specific duties were to be those levied on the articles so protected in 1840. On May 9, also, in response to a request made by the House on March 29, 1842, Secretary of the Treasury Walter Foward submitted a plan for a revised tariff.† His views were laid before the Committee of Ways and Means on June 3, by Fillmore, and after a delay of three weeks, a bill known as No. 472 was reported. If no action were taken on the tariff before July 1, the compromise tariff of 1833 would go into effect, resulting in three evils-the Treasury would become bankrupt, home industries would be paralyzed, and the country would be flooded with foreign goods, wares and merchandise. The act of 1833 had provided that ad valorem duties should be assessed at the port of entry, according to the regulations provided by law. Congress had not provided any such regulations, and it therefore became doubtful whether any duties could * Niles' Register, vol. lxii., pp. 103-109, 196 204. † Ibid, vol. Ixii., pp. 166-167. 72 PASSAGE AND VETO OF THE "LITTLE TARIFF BILL." lawfully be collected after June 30.* An act might easily be passed before July 1, providing the necessary regulations, but to frame an entirely new tariff in so short a time was inexpedient, and the Committee therefore reported the "Little Tariff Bill" extending until August 1 all tariff laws in force on June 1, As the bill stood, the distribution of the proceeds of public land sales, which was to have been made to the States on July 1, would have been prevented, because on that day the rates would have been raised above 20 per cent. ad valorem. Fillmore quickly recalled his bill, and on June 7 it was reported back with a proviso that the distribution of the proceeds of land sales should not be suspended, the provision of the act of September of 1841 to the contrary notwithstanding.† On June 8 Leverett Saltonstall attempted to have the bill from the Committee on Manufactures taken under consideration, but the House refused, and on June 15, by a vote of 116 to 103, the Little Tariff Bill was passed with the proviso that, if no further legislation should be enacted by August 1, the laws were to remain as they were. ‡ This proviso, however, was struck out by the Senate, and another inserted suspending the distribution of land. sales until August 1. On June 24 the *Niles' Register, vol. lxi., p. 275; Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. ii., pp. 20-21. † Niles' Register, vol. lii., pp. 238–239. Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., pp. 427-434. See also Niles' Register, vol. Ixii., pp. 246–255. bill was passed by a vote of 24 to 19.* The House concurred on June 27, by a vote of 104 to 96, and the bill was sent to the President.† This measure was far from meeting the ideas of Tyler, and, on June 29, 1842, he sent it back to Congress with his veto.‡ Tyler based his objection on the fact that the tariff bill suspended the provisions of the act of 1833, which forbade the distribution of the proceeds of land sales after duties had been raised above 20 per cent. ad valorem. Tyler said that, while the act of 1833 had been passed under peculiar circumstances he had always regarded it — 66 as importing the highest moral obligation. It has now existed for nine years unchanged in any essential particular, with as general acquiescence, it is believed, of the whole country as that country has ever manifested for any of her wisely established institutions. This * statutory law proclaims in express terms the principle which, while it led to the abandonment of a scheme of indirect taxation founded on a false basis and pushed to dangerous excess, justifies any enlargement of duties that may be called for by the real exigencies of the public service. It provides that duties shall be laid for the purpose of raising such revenues as may be necessary to an economical administration of the Government.' It is therefore in the power of Congress to lay duties as high as its discretion may dictate for the necessary uses of the Government without infringing upon the objects of the act of 1833. I do not doubt that the exigencies of the Government do require an increase of the tariff of duties above 20 per * Benton, pp. 439-443. Ibid, pp. 443-444; Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. ii., p. 21. See also Schouler, United States, vol. iv., pp. 411-412; McMaster, vol. vii., pp. 59-60; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. ii., pp. 453-454. Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. iv., pp. 180-183; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., pp. 446-448; Niles' Register, vol. lxii., pp. 273-274. EFFECT OF THE VETO. cent. and I as little doubt that Congress may, above as well as below that rate, so discriminate as to give incidental protection to manufacturing industry, thus to make the burdens which it is compelled to impose upon the people for the purposes of Government productive of a double benefit. This most of the reasonable opponents of protective duties seem willing to concede, and, if we may judge from manifestations of public concern in all quarters, this is all that the manufacturing interests will require. I am happy in the persuasion that this double object can be most easily and effectually accomplished at the present juncture without any departure from the spirit and principle of the statute in question. The manufacturing classes have now an opportunity which may never occur again of permanently indentifying their interests with those of the whole country, and making them, in the highest sense of the term, a national concern." Thus Tyler, though not in favor of protective duties in any form, accepted the principle of incidental protection. Congress then discussed the question whether the Little Tariff Bill should be passed over the President's veto, but on July 4, after an angry debate, the effort to do so was unsuccessful, the vote standing 114 in favor and 97 against.* On July 1, therefore, the horizontal tariff of 20 per cent. prescribed by the act of 1833 went into effect. For the next two months duties were levied and collected, for Attorney-General Hugh S. Legaré had assured the President that the act was binding and susceptible of complete execution under the existing state of the law. The collectors of the customs thereupon proceeded to collect the duties as required by the act of 1833, but, in order to ascertain the "home valuation," they added 50 73 per cent. to the foreign valuation and then one-sixth of the whole was deducted, this being equivalent to an addition of 25 per cent. to the foreign valuation. The deduction was made in order not to levy duty upon the freight, the larger part of which was paid by the American shipowners, but the actual effect of this procedure was to collect 25 per cent., instead of the nominal 20 per cent.* The merchants denied the legality of such proceedings, and a suit was begun against the collector at Baltimore to recover duties levied, but, when the case was carried to the Supreme Court, that tribunal rendered a decision in favor of the Government. On the same day (July 1) the provisions of the act for distributing the proceeds of public land sales went into effect, and in time nearly seven hundred thousand dollars ($691,117.05) were divided among the States, Territories and the District of Columbia. While the Little Tariff Bill was under consideration in the Senate, Fillmore's general tariff bill No. 472 was under discussion in the House. Little that was new or worth remembering was said, and the consideration. of amendments was brief, the bill passing the House on July 19 by a vote of 116 to 112.† The Senate Committee on Finance reported a series of 20 amendments, each proposing a moderate reduction from the rate in the House bill. These amendments *Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. ii., p. 24. Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., pp. 456–457. 74 TYLER'S SECOND VETO; CENSURE OF THE PRESIDENT. were rejected, however, as were those offered by Benton, Calhoun, Silas Wright, and others, and as the bill was practically unaltered when the Senate passed it on August 5 by a vote of 25 to 23,* it was sent direct to the President.t Four days later it was returned to the House with a veto message. The President complained that the bill was both a revenue and an appropriation bill, which fact placed him under the necessity of either approving a measure recently disapproved by him or rejecting what he might otherwise have accepted. He demurred also because the bill proposed to give away a source of immense revenue at a time when the Government was not only considering the increase of taxation, but also the borrowing of money to meet its needs. When the veto was read it gave great satisfaction to the Democrats, while, on the other hand, the Whigs were so angry that they threatened to make no further effort to provide the Government with funds for current expenses. Nevertheless, as it was necessary that the vetoed bill should be considered, it was again debated, but laid on the table, and on the motion. of John Quincy Adams, the reasons for the veto were referred to a select committee of 13.|| * Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., pp. 463–478. Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. ii., pp. 24-25; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. ii., p. 457. Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. iv., pp. 183-189; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., pp. 480483; Niles' Register, vol. Ixii., pp. 371-373. || Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., pp. 483-486. The report rendered by this committee savagely attacked the President.* It reviewed the history of Tyler's various vetoes at great length, and bitterly arraigned the President for the last veto. The opinion was even expressed that the President ought to be impeached,† and the power of the veto still further limited by an amendment to the Constitution. Accordingly an amendment was reported providing that when a bill was vetoed it might be passed over the veto by a majority of the whole. Immediately after the report had been rendered, one of the members of the committee, T. W. Gilmer, read a protest charging the majority with attempting to coerce the President by placing the Treasury under duress and also defending the President in the use of the veto. Another minority report was read by C. J. Ingersoll and James T. Roosevelt, upholding the vetoes and declaring the subsequent action of Congress to be without example, unwarranted, and likely to establish a dangerous a dangerous precedent.|| Nevertheless the report of the committee on the vetoes was adopted, but the attempts to pass the bill over the Congressional Globe, 27th Congress, 2d session, pp. 894-896; Benton, pp. 489-494; Niles' Register, vol. lxii., pp. 395–397. Niles' Register, vol. lxii., pp. 314, 397, and vol. lxiii., p. 319; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., p. 643. Congressional Globe, 27th Congress, 2d session, pp. 896-899; Benton, pp. 494-500; Niles' Register, vol. lxii., pp. 408-411. || Benton, pp. 500-503; Niles' Register, vol. lxii., pp. 407-408. THE TARIFF OF 1842. veto and to enact the proposed constitutional amendment failed for the lack of the two-thirds majority, the votes being 91 to 87 and 98 to 90.* For some time the House refused to take further action on the tariff, but, on August 19, while bill 547, providing the necessary rules and regulations for collecting revenues under the compromise tariff, was being considered, everything following the enacting clause was stricken out, and bill 472, with two amendments, was inserted, one striking out the provision for the distribution of the proceeds of public land sales and the other placing tea and coffee on the free list. These amendments were agreed to, but the House refused to pass the bill to a third reading, the vote being a tie-101 to 101. The Speaker then voted in the negative, and the bill was rejected. A motion was made immediately to reconsider it, and this being done the bill was passed by a vote of 105 to 103 and sent to the Senate.‡ The bill proIvided that the duties should be the same as were levied on January 1, 1840, under the act of 1833, and that on all articles save railroad iron, upon which a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem had been imposed under the act of September of 1841, the duty should be increased 10 per cent.|| * Benton, pp. 503-505; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. ii., p. 458. † Benton, p. 507 et seq. Ibid, pp. 510-511; Stanwood, Tariff Contro . versies, vol. ii., p. 27. || Dewey, Financial History, pp. 238-239. 75 The Senate Committee on Finance proposed 31 amendments, generally in the direction of lower duties, and most of them were adopted, the most important being that restoring tea and coffee to the free list. The opponents of the bill made strenuous efforts to modify it radically, but their motions were defeated and on August 27, by a vote of 24 to 23, the bill was passed.* The House concurred in the Senate amendments on the 29th,† and the bill was approved by the President on August 30, 1842.‡ This was the most elaborate tariff bill passed up to that time. The specifications of taxable articles were more minute than in any previous act; the principle of home valuation was discarded; cash payments of all duties was required; an additional 10 per cent. was imposed on goods imported in foreign vessels; a further addition. of 10 per cent. was imposed on goods imported in foreign vessels from points east of the Cape of Good Hope, though neither of these provisions were to be effective against the vessels of countries with which treaties existed, conceding the right of entry into American ports on equal terms. * Benton, pp. 514-526; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. ii., p. 463. Benton, pp. 526–527. Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. ii., p. 28. In general, see also Thompson, History of Protective Tariff Laws, chap. xxxiv.; Taussig, Tariff History, p. 112 et seq. For text, see United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. v., pp. 548-567; Niles' Register, vol. lxiii., pp. 5-10. A compar ison with the rates of previous acts is in Niles, pp. 39-40. |