204 Early History of American Auctions 



1817, on a bill to repeal all internal revenue duties, Mr. Tallmadge 

 of New York moved to except the auction duties, arguing that 

 they had a beneficial operation as imposing an additional burden 

 on foreign products, protecting the fair dealer, and encouraging 

 our manufactures.^'''^ Obviously, protectionism made its debut 

 into the auction system. This proposal was debated and lost ; 

 Mr. Smith of Maryland, while favoring prohibitory auction duties 

 on certain articles, particularly dry goods, held that that matter 

 ought to be taken up on its own f ooting^^^ ; Chairman Lowndes 

 of the Ways and Means Committee saw no decisive injury and 

 considerable benefits from auctions^''^ ; he was supported in this 

 view by Mr. Clay of Kentucky. ^^* Mr. Whitman of Massachu- 

 setts would support the Tallmadge resolution if it were possible 

 to discriminate among cities, in commercial depots the tax was 

 desirable but in smaller seaports and towns it bore "almost with- 

 out exception, on the necessitous and poor."^^^ Others argued 

 that the cost of collection of the tax, if retained alone, would 

 absorb the whole tax.^^*^ The act to repeal all internal duties 

 passed by overwhelming vote and became effective January i, 



1818. The Secretary of the Treasury in his report on the revision 

 of the revenue laws issued that day made no mention of the pro- 

 posal about auction taxes and the matter seemed definitely closed. 



The protectionists brought three bills before Congress in 1820, 

 one for a prohibitory tax on auctions, one for abolition or restric- 

 tion of customs credits, and one for higher import duties.^'*' The 

 reasons for the precipitation of the tarifif problem in 1817 and 

 following years have been explained above. The auction bill was 

 presented by Mr. Baldwin of Connecticut, Chairman of the House 

 Committee on Manufactures. It proposed a tax of 10^0 on 

 auction sales of a long list of enumerated foreign manufactures 

 that competed with American manufactures, 2% on foreign 

 grown or manufactured products not enumerated, 1% on Ameri- 

 can manufactures, and 5% extra if sold in other than their 



"'Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 1st session, p. 426. 



"■' Ibid., 427. 



'"^ Ibid., 428. 



"' Ibid., 427. 



"' Ibid., 426. 



"° Ibid., 427. 



*"' Niles, 17: 361; 18: 169; 24: 104 



