Federal Legislation 205 



original packages. ^'^^ The bill had two purposes — to produce 

 revenue and to protect American industry. Mr. Baldwin did not 

 think the 10% rate prohibitory, but the generality proposed that 

 it should be nearly so.^"** Some objected to the rates, not because 

 they were prohibitory, but because they would work too partially 

 or would be evaded.-"° 



The introduction of this bill had been in response to a flood 

 of petitions and memorials that had been pouring into Congress 

 from the commercial cities during the early months of 1820.-'^^ 

 This bill was said to be "imperiously called for — by at least nine- 

 tenths of the merchants of New York, Philadelphia, and Balti- 

 more."-"- It was debated for several days, but, along with the 

 other two bills, failed to pass, and action on the amended bill was 

 postponed until next session.-"^ One of the most objectionable 

 features was that the federal taxes, in themselves prohibitory, 

 together with the existing State taxes, would destroy the auctions 

 which w^ere a productive source of revenue to certain States, 

 notably New York.-'^^ There was also considerable division of 

 opinion on the whole subject. -°^ i\t the next session of Congress 

 petitions were presented by both auctioneers and opponents-"*^ ; 

 the bill was debated a whole day in committee of the whole and 

 amended, but a motion then to consider it in the House was lost.-'*'^ 



Another auction bill was presented in 1824 by the Committee 

 on Manufactures.-*'* This was in conjunction with the pressure 

 for tariff legislation that year. Congress was again much memo- 

 rialized on the subject of auctions.-*'^ This bill proposed 7}^% 

 duties on sales whether of foreign or domestic growth, and 2jAfo 



"^Annals of Congress, i6th Congress, ist session, p. 2173. 



'■^Ibid., 2176; Niles, 18: 420. 



="" Ibid., 2175-6. 



'"^ Note the presentations of petitions mentioned in Annals of Congress, 

 l6th Congress, ist session, pp. 78, 367, 374, 430, 454, 599; and in Niles, 18: 

 127, 148, 166, 169. 



-°- Niles, 18 : 422. 



"°^ For legislative history of the bill see Niles, 18: 169, 183, 185. 



'"'Niles, 18: 185, 420; 27: 258, 306. 



■°^ Niles, 21: 103, gives reasons for failure of the legislation. 



""*' Annals of Congress, i6th Congress, 2d session, 142. 



'"' Ibid., 864, 1227. 



"°*Ibid., i8th Congress, ist session, p. 1398. 



'"'Ibid., 123, 775, 931, 1398, 3128; Niles, 25: 275, 289, 337. 



