Imágenes de páginas



78x590_VOL 5-13--1




January 17, 1913. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Oscar W. Underwood (chairman) presiding.

Present with the chairman: Messrs. Harrison, Brantley Shackler ford Kitchin Rainey Dixon Hull, Hammond, Peters, Palmer, Ansberry, Payne, Dalzell, Hill, Needham, Fordney, and Longworth.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will start in on the paper schedule. I find that there are 23 witnesses on this calendar to be heard on the paper schedule, and I want to give them a chance to be heard to-day, so I would like to limit, if it is agreeable to the committee, each of these witnesses to 10 minutes. Now, I want to say to the witnesses that if there are several of them here on the same proposition and they want to combine the time of two or three of them and give a man a chance to make a longer speech here, the committee will allow that. But if not, their witnesses will be confined to 10 minutes each.


HOME MARKET CLUB, OF BOSTON. The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

Mr. Marvin. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: Under the first tariff act of the United States Government, paper was placed on the dutiable list at a rate of 74 per cent ad valorem, for the encouragement and protection of the manufacture of this commodity. At the outbreak of the Revolution there were three mills in Massachusetts and one in Rhode Island. In 1776 a mill in Connecticut manufactured paper for the use of the Hartford Press, and produced in addition much of the writing paper used in the colonies. Pennsylvania is credited with the first paper mill in the country, which was built at Roxboro about 1693. The second mill was built at Elizabeth, N. J., in 1728, and the third in Milton, Mass., during the same year. The manufacture of paper in the colonies reached sufficient proportions to form the basis of one of the complaints of the British Board of Trade in 1731 and 1732 against the development of manufactures in America.

It seemed to the fathers of the country a wise and natural thing to do to place a duty on the imports of foreign-made paper in the first Federal tariff bill which was ever framed, a bill which was constructed, as stated by Mr. Hartley, a Representative from Pennsylvania, on the idea thatthe fostering hand of the General Government should extend to all those manufacturos that will tend to national utility.

Probably James Madison had the paper industry, among others, in mind when he said during the debate on the first tariff act:

The States that are the most advaąced in population and ripe for manufactures ought to have their particular interests attended to in some degree. While those States retained the power of making regulations of trade they had the power to protect and cherish such institutions. By adopting the present Constitution they have thrown this power into other hands; they must have done this with the expectation that those interests would not be neglected.

The first Congress of the United States did not neglect the paper industry, forin its wisdom it imposed a duty of 74 per cent on imports of paper, which'in those days, when the difficulties of ocean transportation amounted to a natural protection of from 20 to 30 per cent, was not so small a degree of protection as it seems.

The framers of our early tariff laws did not proceed on the theory that the only object of a tariff act was for the purpose of raising revenue. The preamble of the act of July 4, 1789, our first tariff law, declared that the purpose of the act wasor the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and proection of manufactures.

This act was signed by George Washington, who presided at the convention which adopted the Constitution, and he definitely approved the policy of protection when he said:

Congress have repeatedly directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence not to insure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible.

It was approved by Jefferson, who said: Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort, and asked,

Shall we suppress the impost and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures?

It was approved by Madison, who said: It will be worthy the just and provident care of Congress to make such alterations in the tariff as will more especially protect and foster the several branches of manufacture.

It was approved by Monroe, who said:

Our manufactures require the systematic and fostering care of the Government. Equally important is it to provide at home a market for our raw materials.

It was approved by Andrew Jackson, who said: The great materials of our national defense ought to have extended to them adequate protection, that our manufacturers and laborers may be placed in fair competition with those of Europe.

Such was the policy adopted by the founders of the Government and the framers of the Constitution, and they based it upon the constitutional provisions which empowered Congressto lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and to legislate for the general welfare.

Up to the time when the Union was formed and the States surrendered to the Federal Government all control over import duties, many of the States had their own tariff laws for raising revenue and encouraging industry, and when they transferred this function to the Federal Government they transferred both the power to raise

« AnteriorContinuar »