In America the need of a national govern ment, which could extend protection to the prostrate industries of the States, was one of the most powerful motives to the formation and adoption of the Constitution of 1787, which authorized Congress to impose duties on im ports 'to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.' The harsh experiences of the war for independence had shown the country the need of manufactures for the defense of the nation. It was on this ground that Washington repeatedly pressed for adequate legislation; and in this he was supported by his secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton.
The great President, in his address to Con gress in 1790, said, "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined, to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactures as tend to render them independent of others for essen tials' Duties were steadily adapted to this end, un til the political revolution of 1801 brought Jef ferson into office. From that time no advance in the direction of more adequate protection were made, although only the duty on salt was repealed, with the result that the country had a second salt-famine during the war of 1812-15. Its sufferings in this, and other industrial wants, effectually converted Jefferson from free trade but is was not until 1824 that the country re turned to an effective protective policy.
The South, however, found that its adhesion to slavery precluded it from entering upon man ufactures, and now began to antagonize protec tion as an encroachment on the rights of the States, although her cotton-growing industry had been brought into existence and advanced to prosperity by a protective duty continued for many years. Her threats of nullification led to the adoption of the tariff of 1833, which pro vided for the gradual reduction of all duties to a 20 per cent level by 1840. The general suspen sion of manufacturing through this reduction and the derangement of the currency brought about the severe depression of 1837-42, and caused another political revolution in the elec tion of a Protectionist Whig to the presidency in 1840.
During the four years of the tariff of 1842 there was a great and general restoration of prosperity; but the influence of the example set by England, and the prospect of open mar kets in that country for western and southern products, brought about another change. The tariff of 1846 embodied no economic n but effected a large reduction of duties below the protective level. In 1857 these duties were farther reduced by one-fourth, and another severe depression of industry helped to the election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860. Before he
came into office the Morill tariff had been passed by Congress and si?ned by President Buchanan.
This was done in view of the certainty that a civil war at home was impending, and that it might involve the country in hostilities with England and France. It was therefore felt necessary to put the country in the way of equipping itself for any emergency. The rela tion of home industry to national defense thus indicated, was amply shown in the distresses and disabilities of the Southern Confederacy, which solemnly committed itself to free trade in its Constitution, and was dependent upon its friends in Europe for military and other sup plies. For over 30 years our country persisted in this policy of protection, with some unhappy experiments in the reduction of duties,— notably those on wool and woolens in 1883. The pres ence of a surplus of revenue in the national treasury was made the pretense for demanding 'Tariff reform,* meaning an advance toward free trade. In spite of partial victories, noth ing was effected until after Mr. Cleveland's second election in 1892. The tariff of 1893 fell far short of what he and his friends wished, but it went as far beyond what the country would endure, and brought about a reaction and a return to Protection.
This continued until a division of the Re publican party on other grounds, in 1912 brought back the Democrats to power under a Presi dent devoted to free trade. The tariff of 1913 is a distinct step in that direction. It has not been so harmful as some earlier tariffs, because the vast development of wealth and industrial power under the long continuance of Protec tion has given the country some power of re sistance to legislation adverse to our industrial interests. Also the depression which followed upon its adoption was neutralized in many fields of industry by the outbreak of war in Europe, as this created an immense demand for the products of our two greatest industries agriculture and metal wares. European com petition was checked also by the diversion of millions of men from industry to military serv ice, and by the seclusion of Germany and Au stria-Hungary from foreign commerce. At the same time we were shown the folly of depend ing upon foreign producers for our supply of indispensible articles, such as dye-stuffs. Some of these were placed under a moderate pro tective duty by the votes of the party which had enacted the tariff of 1913, and measures were adopted to prevent our markets being flooded with European goods at sacrifice prices after the close of the war, as was done in 1783 and 1816.