778 



TARIFF REVISION. 



not before its work was substantially com- 

 pleted. 



The Tariff Commission first came together 

 at the summons of the Secretary of the Treas- 

 ury, and held a meeting at the Ebbitt House, 

 in Washington, on the 6th of July. It merely 

 organized and considered plans. An address 

 was made to the members by the president, 

 Mr. John L. Hayes, of Massachusetts, in which 

 he said : 



You will doubtless agree with me that this com- 

 mission has no other functions than those provided 

 by laws, and that its essential duties are defined by 

 the third section of the act constituting the commis- 

 sion, which is as follows : " It shall be the duty of 

 the commission to take into consideration all the vari- 

 ous questions relating to the agricultural, commercial, 

 mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial in- 

 terests of the United States, as far as the same may 

 be necessary for the establishment of a judicious 

 tariff, or the revision of the existing tariff laws upon 

 a scale of justice to all interests." It would be im- 

 proper for me to anticipate the conclusions which 

 should be made by your collective wisdom by any 

 interpretation of my own of the law defining your 

 functions ; but I may, perhaps, be allowed to refer to 

 one phrase in the law constituting the commission, 

 which I think you will agree with me should be the 

 key-note of our deliberations. The law declares that 

 the objective point of our labors is the establishment 

 of a judicious tariff, or a re vision of the existing tariff 

 laws upon a scale of justice to all interests. 



With this end in view, no special industry can have 

 undue advantage ; no private interest can be sub- 

 served ; no duty promoting one industry, yet oppress- 

 ing another, can be justified, and the relations of the 

 industries to each other, no less than the special ne- 

 cessities of eachj must be considered. Moreover, 

 , through the conditions of justice to all interests made 

 imperative by the law, the constitutional or theoret- 

 ical scruples which might have existed as to the origi- 

 nal propriety of the existing national tariff policy 

 must be waived. A radical or subversive change in 

 the present general economical policy of the country 

 is virtually interdicted, and a judicious, not a revolu- 

 tionary tariff a revision, not a destruction, of exist- 

 ing tariff laws is declared to be the object to which 

 our labors shall conduce. 



I have said that this commission has no other func- 

 tions than those expressed in the law. But there is a 

 paramount and implied condition hi all service to the 

 state, namely, the obligation to regard the interests of 

 the nation, or those all-embracing benefits summed 

 up in the words national prosperity. If, in the defini- 

 tion of the subjects which should receive the consid- 

 eration of the commission, some are omitted which 

 we can scarcely doubt were intended to be kept in 

 view ; if questions of revenue, if the interests of con- 

 sumers, of science, of literature, and of art, are not 

 specially referred to, they may be all included under 

 the implied obligation resting upon us to consider the 

 interests of the nation as a whole. . . . By making 

 the national interests paramount to those of section, 

 class, or industry, we may also find a solution of 

 many questions of opposite individual or sectional in- 

 terests, and may avoid many difficulties by reinein - 

 bering, while not unmindful of justice to existing in- 

 terests, that protective duties snould be imposed or 

 withheld, not for the benefit of individuals or special 

 industries, but for the good of the nation. If, through 

 the spirit and methods of our labors, we should be "so 

 fortunate as to conduce to the result that sectional- 

 ism and partisanship shall sink in the aim for the 

 general good, and the policies and names of protec- 

 tion, free trade, and revenue reform, shall be merged 

 in the broader system and phrase a national policy 

 the moral will equal the material benefits of the new 

 economical departure. 



Sessions were continued in Washington for 

 several days for the completion of preliminary 

 work, and the hearing of testimony was begun 

 at Long Branch, N. J., on the 19th of July. 

 The commission held its sittings at that place 

 until the 22d of August, twenty-nine days 

 being occupied with its investigations there. 

 The witnesses who appeared before it were for 

 the most part representatives of protected in- 

 terests, who were anxious for the retention of 

 high duties. The first witness was a chemical 

 manufacturer from Philadelphia, who said that 

 there were 1,549 chemical establishments in 

 the country, with an aggregate capital of $85,- 

 000,000, and annual sales amounting to $118,- 

 000,000, and employing 30,000 people. He was 

 not in favor of reducing duties on manufactured 

 chemicals, but made a suggestion that there 

 should be no tax on raw materials not pro- 

 duced in the country, but should be one on 

 such as are produced in the country, varying in 

 amount according to the importance of the 

 material. Chemical manufacturers, he said, 

 were now independent of Great Britain and 

 the rest of the world, and wished to remain 

 so. His testimony was followed by that of a 

 representative of the Manufacturing Chemists' 

 Association of the United States, who said that 

 they did not object to a revision of the tariff or 

 to reduction of some of the duties. This state- 

 ment was followed by an argument in favor of 

 restoring a 20 per cent duty on quinine. On 

 the 25th of July the commission adopted the 

 following rules regarding the admission of tes- 

 timony : 



1. Oral testimony shall be confined to statement of 

 facts relating to or affecting some one or more of the 

 subjects which, under the law, are proper to be con- 

 sidered by the commission, except that when the wit- 

 ness is shown to be an expert upon any such subject 

 he may give his opinions as such expert in relation 

 thereto. 



2. The witness may, in the first instance, make his 

 statement without inquiry, or in answer to inquiries, 

 as the commission may from time to time direct, and 

 each witness who testifies shall be subject to exami- 

 nation and cross-examination by any member of the 

 commission. 



3. The commission will also receive written state- 

 ments, communications, or arguments upon any sub- 

 ject proper for its consideration ; but such statements, 

 communications, or arguments will not be published, 

 except by the direction of the commission. 



4. Persons desiring to be heard in oral argument 

 upon any subject wifl make application to the com- 

 mission in writing, specifying the subject on which 

 they desire to be heard and the time desired. The 

 commission reserves the right, in each instance, to de- 

 termine whether it will hear such proposed argument, 

 and, if it does, what time shall be allowed, and to fix 

 the time and place for the argument. And such argu- 

 ments will not be published except by special order of 

 the commission. 



5. Persons who are assigned a hearing on argument 

 are requested to furnish to the commission n state- 

 ment in writing of the points they propose to make, 

 and to be careful in quoting authorities to furnish a 

 list of those cited. 



On the 26th, the Assistant-Secretary of the 

 Treasury, H. F. French, submitted an argu- 

 ment in favor of simplicity in classifications 





