TARIFF REVISION. 



777 



church people in Ireland all the benefits pos- 

 sible under the changed state of things caused 

 by disestablishment. In 1870 he was relieved 

 of some of his heavy duties by the appoint- 

 ment of Dr. Parry as suffragan Bishop of Do- 

 ver, and he visited Italy for the benefit of his 

 health. He presided over the Pan-Anglican 

 Synod at Lambeth, in 1867 ; the Church Con- 

 gress at Croyden, in 1877 ; and the Conference 

 of Anglican Bishops in 1878. Mrs. Tait died 

 in 1878, and the effect upon the archbishop 

 was extremely depressing. His chief publica- 

 tions were : " Charges to the Clergy," in the 

 years 1858, 1862, and 1866; "The Dangers 

 and Safeguards of Modern Theology," sermons, 

 etc., in 1861 ; " The Word of God and Ground 

 of Faith," eleven discourses, 1863, 1864 ; sepa- 

 rate sermons, addresses, etc., at different times, 

 together with articles in the "Edinburgh Re- 

 view " and " North British Review." His latest 

 publication was " The Church of the Future," 

 a diocesan charge delivered to rural deaneries, 

 in August and September, 1880. 



TARIFF REVISION. The existence of a 

 large surplus revenue, the consequent tend- 

 ency to extravagant expenditures, the rapid re- 

 demption of Government bonds, which form 

 the basis of the national currency, and a grow- 

 ing conviction that the industrial and commer- 

 cial interests of the country are oppressed and 

 deranged by heavy taxation, have in the last 

 two years produced a rapidly increasing agita- 

 tion in favor of a thorough revision of the 

 tariff laws of the United States. The effect 

 was felt at the session of Congress which met 

 in December, 1881, but political sentiment was 

 so divided on the subject that it was evidently 

 impossible to secure agreement on any careful 

 measure of reform. The Republican party had 

 a controlling majority in the House of Repre- 

 sentatives, in which revenue measures origi- 

 nate, and, while it had no clearly defined posi- 

 tion regarding the tariff, the preponderating 

 sentiment was in favor of preserving, so far as 

 possible, the protective features of the existing 

 law. The Democrats were in a general way 

 pledged to reform, and a tariff for revenue 

 only, but among them there were wide differ- 

 ences of opinion, some being as strongly at- 

 tached to protective doctrines as any of the 

 opposing party. The need of reducing the 

 revenue was acknowledged on both sides, and 

 the demand for a revision of the tariff was rec- 

 ognized, but there was no chance of agree- 

 ment on any practical measure. The result ol 

 prolonged discussion was the reference of the 

 question of tariff revision to a commission, and 

 an unsuccessful effort to pass a bill to remove 

 or reduce certain of the internal revenue taxes. 

 (See CONGRESS.) 



THE TARIFF COMMISSION. The Tariff Com- 

 mission was to consist of nine persons from 

 civil life, to be appointed by the President, with 

 the advice and consent of the Senate. On the 

 7th of June the President sent to the Senate 

 for approval and confirmation the names of 



William A. Wheeler, of New York ; John L. 

 Hayes, of Massachusetts ; Henry W. Oliver, Jr., 

 of Pennsylvania ; Austin M. Garland, of Illi- 

 nois ; Jacob Ambler, of Ohio ; John S. Phelps, 

 of Missouri ; Robert P. Porter, of the District 

 of Columbia; John W. H. Underwood, of 

 Georgia ; and Duncan F. Kenner, of Louisiana. 

 Mr. Wheeler declined the appointment, and 

 several gentlemen to whom it was offered, 

 including Mr. A. A. Low, of New York, the 

 Hon. Hugh McCulloch, and the Hon. Erastus 

 Corning, refused to accept it. Mr. Phelps, of 

 Missouri, also declined, and the two vacant 

 places were filled on the 16th of June, by the 

 appointment of Alexander R. Boteler, of West 

 Virginia, and William H. McMahon, of New 

 York. The action of Congress in providing 

 for the commission was generally regarded as 

 in the interest of conservative changes in the 

 tariff, and the maintenance of its protective 

 features, so far as practicable consistently with 

 the desired decrease of revenue. This impres- 

 sion was confirmed by the character and posi- 

 tion of the men appointed as commissioners. 

 Mr. Hayes, who became chairman of the com- 

 mission, was closely identified with the inter- 

 ests of growers and manufacturers of wool, was 

 secretary of their national organization, and 

 the publisher of a journal in Boston devoted 

 to their affairs, and had long had a local rep- 

 utation as an able defender of the protective 

 policy. Mr. Oliver was closely connected with 

 the iron interests of Pennsylvania, being large- 

 ly interested in two extensive establishments 

 at Pittsburg. Mr. Garland was an extensive 

 sheep-raiser, officially connected with the 

 Wool-Growers' Association, and in favor of pro- 

 tecting the raw materials as well as the man- 

 ufactured products of the country. Mr. Am- 

 bler was a man of considerable experience in 

 public life, having seen both legislative and ju- 

 dicial service in his own State, and represented 

 one of its districts in Congress for two terms. 

 He was a decided protectionist, and his ap- 

 pointment was favored by that interest in 

 Ohio. Robert P. Porter, who became the sec- 

 retary of the commission, was chiefly known 

 as a statistical writer, and one of the leading 

 workers in the United States Census Bureau. 

 Mr. Underwood was a man of long experience 

 in public life in the South, and understood to 

 be favorable to the policy of building up man- 

 ufacturing interests in that section with the 

 aid of protection. Mr. Boteler was connected 

 with the Whig party before the civil war, and 

 was regarded as conservative in his views on 

 the tariff. Mr. Kenner was extensively en- 

 gaged in sugar-planting in Louisiana, and rep- 

 resented the claims of that interest. Mr. Mc- 

 Mahon held a prominent position in the New 

 York Custom-House^ and was selected on ac- 

 count of his familiarity with the details of the 

 collection of duties, the difficulty in adminis- 

 tering the laws, and the general requirements 

 of the customs service. He died before the 

 report of the commission was made, but 



