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

In the context of the times, the "proof' would primarily come in the form of widely distributed publications that provided statistics and anecdotal evidence of public support. Since Downs's work, a substantial amount of contemporary research has been focused on integrating the role of imperfect information in the lobbying process. Using Downs, Truman (1951), Buchanan and Tullock (1962), and Olson (1965) as foundations, more recent theoretical work (e.g., Hayes 1981; Austen-Smith 1993; Ainsworth and Sened 1993; Winden 1999) and empirical work (e.g., Wright 1990) shows that the legislators' imperfect information opens a door for informed interest groups to significantly influence policy, and that campaign contributions are really a way of gaining access to "inform" legislators. Even in a information-rich age, "omniscience is rare, and decision makers are frequently choosing policies without complete information on their consequences, in which case, information becomes valuable, and those who possess it are accordingly in a position to influence policy" (Austen-Smith 1993: 799-800). Given this background, the role of Hezekiah Niles is considered first.

Hezekiah Niles, a fervent supporter of the protective tariff, was the publisher and editor of the widely distributed Niles' Weekly Register (NWR). First published in Baltimore, Maryland in 1811, the NWR was dedicated to covering a wide variety of topics, with special attention paid to manufacturing, agriculture, the major political debates, and votes in Congress. NWR was also a significant source of statistics relating to domestic and international commerce. Throughout the debate on the tariff in 1827 and 1828, NWR was a constant and vocal supporter of the wool growers and manufactures, and substantial portions of NWR were dedicated to covering, in detail, the Harrisburg Convention and the long congressional debates associated with the tariff of 1828. In fact, it was Niles who chaired the convention committee charged with writing a general public address (i.e., press release) concerning the reasons and goals behind the convention (Stanwood [1903]1967 vol. 1: 265-266). Ultimately, Niles became the primary author of the address, and he spent two months finalizing the work while his son took over his regular editorial duties (Luxon 1947: 55-56). This effort is surprising since there is no evidence that Niles would have significantly profited from higher tariffs.

Although NWR seems to have been the more influential in the northern and mid-Atlantic states, it was still widely subscribed to for the antebellum period. In Niles Weekly Register, News Magazine of the Nineteenth Century, Luxon (1947: 7) estimated that the Registers circulation ranged between 3,500 and 4,500 throughout its first 25 years of existence. In late 1823, "[Niles] listed by state and territory the 198 new subscribers he had received in five months. Twenty-four states, the District of Columbia, and Arkansas Territory were on the list ....John Adams wrote of the receipt of eleven volumes [in 1817]; Thomas Jefferson was a regular subscriber; Andrew Jackson had a complete file, at least for the first dozen years" (Luxon 1947: 8). Several months after the Harrisburg Convention, "Congress subscribed for ten copies for the use of members" (Luxon 1947: 8). In reference to this subscription, NWR stated, "we think [the subscription] will prove useful to the house, if we may judge by the past--from the gallery, we have had the curiosity to count the volumes of the Register [italics added] lying on the desks of the members, and, more than once, found them to exceed forty--once forty seven, and on almost as many different desks" (Niles Weekly Registervol. 33: 265). Luxon found that "Niles was often quoted as an authority on the floor of the Congress, in state legislatures, and by the press on both sides of the controversy over protection" (1947: 107). This supports Stanwood's assertion that "[t]here were many newspapers which took an anti-protectionist view of the question and argued it with vigor. With one or two exceptions, they had no more than a local influence. Even the 'National Intelligencer' and the New York 'Evening Post' had far less power than the Nile's 'Weekly Register' and [Mathew] Carey's pamphlets" ([1903]1967 vol. 1: 249).