and unskilled speculators, to be followed by disaster to the adventurers and their employés, and a plethora of commodities which deranges the operations of skilled and prudent enterprise.

"Entertaining these views, the Commission has sought to present a scheme of tariff duties in which substantial reduction should be the distinguishing feature. The average reduction in rates, including that from the enlargement of the free list . . . at which the Commission has aimed is not less on the average than 20 per cent., and it is the opinion of the Commission that the reduction will reach 25 per cent. The reduction, slight in some cases, in others not attempted, is in many cases from 40 to 50 per cent." 1

With its report, the Commission suggested a bill which, had Congress been wise and actuated by the greatest good of the greatest number, they would have enacted, disposing of the tariff question in a manner approved by statesmanship and sound economic doctrine. No better authority can be cited than that of John Sherman, whose four years in the Treasury department and long service on the Senate Finance Committee fitted him to speak as he did after Congress had refused the proffered bill of the Commission and made up one of their own. "At the beginning of this session," he said, "the finance committee of the Senate had before it the tariff commission report which was an admirable and harmonious plan for a complete law fixing the rates of duty on all kinds of important merchandise, and, what was better, an admirable revision of the laws for the collection of duties and for the

1 Rep. of the Tariff Com., 5 et seq.

trial of customs cases. If the committee had adopted this report, and even had reduced the rates of duty proposed by the commission, but preserved the harmony and symmetry of the plan, we would have had a better tariff law than has existed in this country." 1

It was however too much to expect that Congress would abandon one of its rights and privileges, so, taking the Commission report as a basis of information the Ways and Means Committee of the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate went to work to construct a tariff law. The Senate got around the constitutional provision, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" by tacking its measure on to a bill reducing the internal revenue passed by the House at the last session. Both committees reported; the House and the Senate each passed a tariff bill, differing from the Commission report and from each other. Conference was necessary and must be had quickly, as this was the short session. In the actual House, that elected in 1880, the Republicans had a plurality of 23; in the next House, that chosen in 1882, the Democrats outnumbered the Republicans by 78.2 It was certain that if the next House revised the tariff, they would revise it downward, therefore it was deemed highly important for the doctrine of protection that a tariff bill should pass before the fourth of March. Hence expedients were adopted that will not bear defence. By a bit of parliamentary

1 Rec., ii. 854. Be it remembered, Sherman warmly favored a protective tariff.

2 Republicans 152, Democrats 129, Readjusters 2, Greenbackers 9 in the actual House. In the House elected in 1882, Republicans 118, Democrats 196, Readjusters 5, Greenbackers 1, Independents 3, Vacancies 2, to which a Readjuster and an Independent were elected.

legerdemain, under the lead of Thomas B. Reed, the House adopted a new rule "wholly unprecedented" 1 anent their participation in the committee of conference the purpose of which was to have this committee decide on all controverted points. As the Republican majority of the House was protectionist and controlled the Speaker, the rule was in the interest of protection, but it was cunningly devised to effect a high tariff or none at all. It realized, so it was said, "the Irishman's dream of a gun which should fire so as to hit the object if it was a deer and miss it if it was a cow."2 While "the Democratic members were astounded at the audacity of the programme," 3 they were unable to defeat the rule.

Senators and representatives met in conference, but as the representatives under instructions from the House presented the view of its constitutional rights to originate revenue measures, two Democratic senators, Bayard and Beck, distinguished men and tariff reformers, who had been appointed as two of the Senate conferees, declined to serve on the ground that the conference could not be "full and free." Ten Democratic senators were successively appointed; all declined, whereupon the committee was filled by the appointment of a Republican and the Readjuster Mahone. This conference committee made the bill which was ultimately adopted by Congress. It merits the appellation given it by Miss Tarbell, "the mongrel bill of 1883." It resulted in no material reduction of the tariff. The conference committee, so said at the time Sherman, who was one of their number, "restored nearly all the inequalities and incongruities of the old

1 Stanwood, 212.

2 Tarbell, 126.

3 Stanwood, 212.

tariff and yielded to local demands and local interests to an extent that destroyed all symmetry and harmony." 1 But all the protectionists were not satisfied. William McKinley, one of the House members of the committee and who was becoming the arch-apologist of the tariff, would not sign the conference report because it reduced the duty on wool; he also voted against the bill. Ohio was a wool-growing State and he was acting in the interest of his constituents. Sherman for much the same reason regretted that he had not defeated the bill by voting with the Democrats against the adoption of the Conference Report.2

The iniquity of making a tariff bill in committee is seen by the effort of Readjuster Mahone, who was only an eleventh hour substitute, to raise the duty on iron ore because it was a product of his State of Virginia. The Tariff Commission and the Senate bill had made it 50 cents a ton but he clamored for more. Finally he declared he would not sign the report unless the duty was made at least 75 cents a ton; the rest of the Committee yielded and this rate was fixed and enacted by the bill. Lake Superior ore producers told this story gleefully and lauded, Mahone, who so they affirmed, wrought in the interest of all miners of iron ore.3

1 March 13, Rec., ii. 854.

2 But Sherman did not sign the Conference Report. Record, 8722. See Tarbell, 117.

The act made material reductions in the internal revenue taxation.1

'It took off the tax on bank deposits and capital, the 2 cent stamp on bank cheques, the stamp duties on proprietary medicines and preparations, cosmetics, perfumery, etc.: these dated from the Act of 1864. It took off the tax on friction matches, wax tapers and cigar lights, which had been imposed in 1864 and 1866; also the stamp on playing cards imposed by the Act of 1866. It made material reductions in the tobacco taxes imposed by the Acts of 1872, 1875, 1879.

The ordinary receipts and expenditures of the government are shown by the following table. The receipts do not include those of the Post Office Dep't nor do the expenditures include those disbursements or the payment of the principal of the public debt.