Special interest protectionism and the antebellum woolen textile industry: a contemporary issue in a historical context

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Nov, 2006 by Grant D. Forsyth

The debates associated with the 1828 act started with a politically charged request from the House Committee on Manufactures at the start (December 1827) of the 20th Congress. (14) The committee requested that it "be vested with the power to send for persons and papers" with information regarding the need for higher tariffs, especially on woolen textiles (Register of Debates in Congress, December 31, 1827; 1st Session 20th Congress: 862; Pincus 1977: 49-51). Although Mallary openly opposed the committee's request for subpoena power, he was, he noted, obligated to communicate the wishes of the committee's voting majority, the supporters of Jackson (see Table 3). According to the comments made before the House by Representative John Wright of Ohio (one of the congressional delegates to the Harrisburg Convention and a member of the committee for the 18th and 19th Congresses), this power had never been granted to a committee not dedicated to judicial matters (Register of Debates in Congress, December 31, 1827; 1st Session 20th Congress: 862). Wright continued to argue, somewhat prophetically, that, "[a]s a precedent, it is exceedingly dangerous. Should the grant of such power become common, it would lead to the exercise of inquisitional powers" (id. at 885). However, it appears that Mallary, Wright, and other congressional supporters of the woolens industry were also concerned that if manufacturers were asked to testify before the committee, it could weaken their case for additional protection and delay completion of bill that could be passed by the end of the first session of Congress. Ultimately, the House voted to grant the committee subpoena power, which resulted in manufacturers like DuPont being called to testify during January. A record of these testimonies and a new tariff bill were submitted to Congress at the end of January and, once submitted, the bill took up most of the first session of Congress.

As reported from the Committee of Manufactures, the bill did not contain the exact minimum valuations requested by the Harrisburg Convention (Register of Debates in Congress, March 4, 1828; 1st Session 20th Congress: 1727-1729). The committee's bill contained the additional minimum of $1, the lower maximum minimum valuation of $4, and required that specific and not ad valorem rates be applied to the minimum valuations. Taussig ([1892]1910: 94) felt that the original use of ad valorem rates was intended to hide the highly protective nature of the Harrisburg duties. Although Mallary offered several amendments in the House to impose the Harrisburg duties, each attempt was rebuffed. Finally, in order to keep the bill moving, Mallary indicated a willingness to accept an amendment offered by Representative (and future U.S. President) James Buchanan of Pennsylvania that would have replaced the minimum valuations with straight ad valorem duties. Mallary, who received some criticism for his compromise, explained that his decision was "not from choice, but as dernier [last] resort, considering it as somewhat better than the bill proposed by the committee" (Register of Debates in Congress, April 10, 1828; 1st Session 20th Congress: 2263). However, in the end, Buchanan's amendment was also rejected in favor of the committee's core bill. Although the final bill passed by the Senate and signed into law retained the minimum valuations passed in the House, it once again converted the specific duties to ad valorem duties.