PORRIT, Fiscal and Diplomatic Freedom, 123-160; BASTIAT, Economic Sophisms; ASHLEY, W. J., Tariff Problems; SMART, Return to Protection; ROOT, Trade Relations of British Empire; CUNNINGHAM, Free Trade Movement, 100-168; PIGOU, Protective and Preferential Import Duties, 1-117; CHAMBERLAIN, Imperial Union and Tariff Reform; MACINTOSH, Joseph Chamberlain; HOBSON, New Protectionism; ROBERTSON, New Tariffism; MONEY, Elements of the Fiscal Problem; FUCHS, Trade Policy of Great Britain; BERARD, British Imperalism; TAUSSIG, Tariff History of the United States; STANWOOD, American Tariff Controversies; TARBELL, Tariff in Our Times; RABBENO, American Commercial Policy; CULBERTSON, Commercial Policy; MANGOLD, Labor Argument in American Tariff Discussion; GRUNZEL, Economic Protectionism; GEORGE, Protection and Free Trade; LIST, National System of Political Economy; PATTEN, Economic Basis of Protection; CAREY, Principles of Social Science; TAUSSIG, Selected Readings; TAUSSIG, Some Aspects of Tariff Question; TAUSSIG, Free Trade, Tariff, and Reciprocity.

E. MCKINLEY, WILLIAM, "The Value of Protection," North American Review, 150: 740; JORDAN, D. S., "Moral Aspects of the Tariff," Independent, 65: 1209-1211; JOHNSON, A. S., "Protection and the Formation of Capital," Political Science Quarterly, 23: 220-241; TAUSSIG, F. W., "Industries Worth Having," Atlantic, May, 1913; TAUSSIG, F. W., "How the Tariff Affects Wages," Atlantic, 124: 408-419; LAUCK, W. J., "A Real Myth," Atlantic, September, 1912; TAUSSIG, F. W., Collier's Weekly, September 13, 1919; DOMERATZKY, L. A., "Forecast of Future Tariff Policies of Europe," The Americas, October, 1919; CHALMERS, H., "What Europe's Tariffs Mean to Us," Nation's Business, March, 1923, pp. 50-54; "Possible Gains from Protective Duties," Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1912, pp. 782-787; COMMONS, J. R., "TariffRevision and Protection to Labor," Annals, 32:315-356; GRAHAM, F. D., "Some Aspects of Protection Further Considered," Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1923, pp. 199-228; "Tariff Policy for a Creditor Nation," (Annals, 94: 47–51; Proc. Am. Acad. Pol. Sci., 9: 15-38); JONES, C. L., "Commercial Policy of Spain since the Armistice," Annals, 94:24-29; WALLACE, "Post-war Tariff Changes and Tendencies," Ibid., 175-184; PATTERSON, "Perils of the New Economic Nationalism," Ibid., 208-215; The British Safeguarding of Industries Act, Commerce Reports, September 12, 1921, pp. 116-119; Commerce Monthly, November, 1921, p. 29.

U. S. Tariff of 1909: FISK, G. M., Pol. Sci. Quar., 25: 35-68; MCCALL, S. W., Atlantic, 104: 562-568; WILLIS, H. P., (Jour.

Accounting, 8: 317-330; Jour. Pol. Econ., 17: 1-18, 589-619); ČUMMINGS, J., Ibid., 17:153–157; TARBELL, IDA, American Magazine, December, 1910; WILSON, W., North American Review, 190: 535-556; TAUSSIG, F. W., Quar. Jour. Econ., 24:1-38.

U. S. Tariff of 1913: TAUSSIG, F. W., Quar. Jour. Econ., November, 1913; WILLIS, H. P., Jour. Pol. Econ., Jan., Feb., March, 1914; CULBERTSON, W. S., Annalist, December 8, 15, 22, 1913, and January 2, 1914; STONE, N. I., Rev. of Rev., November, 1913; MUSSEY, H. R., Pol. Sci. Quar., 29: 600-624; Protectionist, December, 1913.

U. S. Tariff of 1922: BERGLUND, A., Am. Econ. Rev., March, 1923, PP. 14–34; LAUGHLIN, J. L., No. Am. Rev., February, 1923, pp. 145-162; TAUSSIG, F. W., Quar. Jour. Econ., November, 1922, pp. 1-28; COLE, A. H., Ibid., pp. 29–51.

SUGGESTIVE TOPICS AND QUESTIONS

1. Make a careful abstract of Hamilton's Report on Manufactures. TAUSSIG, Selected Readings, 454-479; Tariff State Papers and Speeches; Hamilton's Works.

2. Compare the views of Hamilton, List, Carey, Greeley, and Patten. Consult their writings; also RABBENO, Commercial Policy of the United States; CALLENDER, Readings in Economic History, 546-558; TAUSSIG, Selected Readings, 277–299.

3. To what extent were protectionist aims considered in the framing of (a) American colonial tariffs? (Quar. Jour. Econ., 7:78); (b) the federal tariff of 1789? (HILL, First Steps, 108 et seq.; STANWOOD, Tariff Controversies, Vol. I. pp. 39 et seq.)

4. What lessons are to be drawn from the evolution of tariff policy in the Confederate States? SCHWAB, Confederate States, Ch. II.

5. Is there anything about a protective tariff in the United States Constitution? (See Constitution, and Journal of Political Economy, 5:40.) Has the constitutionality of protection been questioned? (See platforms of Democratic party since Civil War.) If you believed a protective tariff unconstitutional, could you conscientiously vote for protection?

6. Does a protective tariff make for conservation of natural resources? FETTER, Modern Economic Problems, 212-213.

7. In its broadest aspects, what does protectionism include? GRUNZEL, 125-127.

8. Is the attempt to base tariff rates upon difference between cost of production at home and abroad practicable? GRUNZEL, 151-153;

CULBERTSON, Commercial Policy, Ch. 7; TAUSSIG, Free Trade Tariff, and Reciprocity, Chs. 7 and 8; American Economic Review, Supplement, March, 1911, pp. 19–41.

9. Arguments of German economists for and against protective duties on agricultural products. ASHLEY, Modern Tariff History, 226-228, 113135; TAUSSIG, Selected Readings, 343-371 (Wagner), 392-417 (Brentano); Quarterly Journal Economics, May, 1903, especially pp. 405 et seq.

10. Summarize Richard Schuller's discussion of the effect of imports on domestic production. TAUSSIG, Selected Readings, 371-392.

II. Trace the development of the labor argument for protection in the United States. To what extent is it valid in its present form? (MANGOLD, Labor Argument; TAUSSIG, Free Trade, Tariff and Reciprocity, 48-70; Atlantic Monthly, September, 1912, p. 338; CARVER, Principles of National Economy, 457-460.) What is the attitude of manual laborers in Australasia toward protection? (BRYCE, International Relations, 81-83).

12. Show concretely how war diversification of American industry has strengthened the appeal to the infant industry argument. What considerations should guide in deciding whether war-born industries should be fostered by protective legislation? CULBERTSON, Commercial Policy, Chs. 2-4, 6; TAUSSIG, Some Aspects, Ch. 2; Tariff Series, No. 25.

13. Must the United States as a creditor nation modify its traditional attitude toward a protective tariff? Annals, 94: 37-43, 47-51 and May, 1921, p. 220-227; Proceedings Academy Political Science, 9: 15-38.

14. "We (the United States) have already reached the stage when we are barely self-feeding. What does this portend as to future tariff policy of the nation? Proceedings of Academy Political Science, 9:37-38; American Economic Review, Supplement, March, 1921, pp. 38-39; Saturday Evening Post, 194: 21 (October 15, 1921).

15. Trace historical development of tariff policy in the Scandinavian countries. DRACHMANN, 11-32 (Denmark); 33-82 (Sweden); 83-115 (Norway); Commerce Reports.

16. Russian tariff development (a) prior to World War (OGG, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 336-338); (b) under Soviet régime (Commerce Reports, especially September 25, 1922, p. 875.)

17. What have been the chief features in the development of commercial policy in Europe since the armistice? Annals, 94:24-29, 175-185; Nation's Business, March, 1923, pp. 50-54; Ibid., April, 1923, pp. 46-50; Commerce Reports (sections headed "Tariffs and Trade Regulations").

CHAPTER V

EXPORT, IMPORT, AND TRANSIT DUTIES

Definition and Development of Customs Duties. Customs duties were originally taxes on trade. They were usually payments made for the use of roads, bridges, ferries, harbor facilities, warehouses, weights and measures, or for the protection of goods and merchants on the highways. According to Adam Smith they "seem to have been called customs as denoting customary payments which had been in use from time immemorial." Sometimes these duties were levied at the boundary, as, for example, in an insular country like England, where from very early times there was an export duty on wool; but more often they were collected at the gates of a town, at various places of deposit, or at other convenient localities. Fiscal requirements were almost the sole reason for the levying of these duties. In the course of time, as states became more consolidated, these innumerable taxes became more and more of a hindrance both to political and economic development. The result was a tendency toward the elimination of restrictions and the unification of taxation out of which has developed in most modern civilized states the twofold system of taxation — internal taxes and customs duties. The former include that part of the income of a country derived largely from general property, incomes, stamps, licenses, and excises or taxes placed on certain commodities of home production and consumption, notably on tobacco and liquors, while customs duties are taxes levied upon merchandise which passes the frontier.

Customs duties in a national sense were first developed in England, beginning especially at the time of Cromwell.1 Colbert, as has been stated, cherished the plan of replacing the multitudinous local customs duties in France by general taxes levied at the national boundary, but this reform was not effected until the period of the Revolution. A similar movement was begun in other European countries during the latter part of the eighteenth century. In Germany it found expression in the Prussian tariff act of 1818, which was the forerunner of the German tariff union, or Zollverein, organized in 1834. In early American history taxation was entirely local in character, but this was largely modified in 1789 by the federal constitutional requirement that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Classification of Customs Duties. There are three general classes of customs duties: (1) import duties, or those levied on merchandise brought into a country; (2) export duties, or those levied on merchandise sent out of a country; and (3) transit duties, or those levied upon merchandise passing through one country and destined for another.

Customs duties may be either for purposes of revenue or for protection. The former seem to mean duties levied for the sole purpose of revenue, while the latter would appear to be those levied entirely for the purpose of protection. In practice, however, these terms are not used in this absolute sense, since both revenue and protection play more or less of a rôle in nearly all customs duties. It is, therefore, more correct to define revenue customs duties as those levied upon merchandise primarily for revenue and incidentally for protection, while conversely protective duties are those which are primarily for protection and incidentally for revenue.

As might easily be inferred from the preceding chapter, there

1 On origin of customs duties in England, see LIPSON, Economic History of England, Vol. 1, pp. 521-524.