A Brief History of Panics and Their Periodical Occurrence in the United States

by Clément Juglar

In 1816 their demand met explicit assent, for, in the tariff of that year, duty for protection, not for revenue, was granted; and an average of 25 per cent. duties for six years, to be followed by an average of 20 per cent. duties, was laid upon imports. For a few years bad bread crops in Europe, demand for our cotton, and an inflation of our currency delayed a panic.

But, we had started on our unreasoning course. We had tried to ignore the laws of demand and supply, and had forgotten that it is also artificial to attempt preventing purchases in the cheapest, and selling in the highest markets; and to help a few manufacturers we had put up prices for all that a large majority of our population,—the agriculturists mainly—had to buy. In a short while the demand for what the farmers had to sell fell away, and bills could not be met, and their troubles were added to those of the minority of the consumers of the country; the volume of business fell off, and a panic came in 1818. The influences that led up to it continued until 1846, as follows: The great factors in producing this state of affairs were the successive tariffs of 1818, with its 25 per cent. duty upon cottons and woollens, and its increased duties on all forms of manufactured iron, (the tariff of 1824 which increased duties considerably), and the tariff of 1828, imposing an average of 50 per cent. duties, and in which the protective movement reached its acme (omitting, of course, the present McKinley Bill with its 60 per cent. average duty). In 1832, consequently, a great reaction in sentiment took place, and the "Compromise Tariff" was passed and duties were lowered. From this period, the advocacy of a high tariff in order to protect "Infant Industries," no longer "Infant" was largely abandoned, and its advocacy was generally based upon the fallacy, less obvious then than now, of securing high wages to laborers by means of high import duties. This plea for high duties the laborer found to be fallacious.

They (agriculturists mainly) found that they had to pay more for manufactured goods, so that the manufacturers could still buy their raw materials at the advanced prices, pay themselves the accustomed or increased profits, and then possibly pay the laborer a small advance in wages.

The advance did not compensate for increased cost of necessaries of life. If competition reduced the manufacturers' profit, the first reduction of expenses was always in the laborer's pay. The recognition of these truths brought about the further reduction of duties until 1842, in which year the tariff was once more raised. It was not until 1846 that we enjoyed a tariff which sought to eliminate the protective features. It is significant that a period of greater profit and stability among our business men, but especially among our farmers, was then inaugurated. This was the first tariff, since that of 1816, not affected by politics. It lasted-until 1857, and the country flourished marvellously under it.

From 1816, when protection was first resorted to, until today, tariff rates have been almost continually raised, mainly by votes of the agriculturists, misled by the manufacturers and politicians, influenced by the manufacturers' money. And a fact worth noting is that financial panics have come quick and furious. They came in 1818, and in 1825-26, in 1829-30, and so on, (see page 13). Sudden changes in our tariff rates have unvaryingly been followed by financial panics within a short period. Changes to lower rates have not brought panics so quickly as changes in the reverse direction.

Low tariff without protective features, maintained steadily, has been coincident with constantly increasing prosperity to the country at large: but most especially to the agriculturists. This is readily understood, for purchases of imported and manufactured goods and all outfit needed for the farmers' land and family can be made at low—and owing to the competition that always arises to supply a steady and natural market—lowering prices. Moreover, the settled prices prevailing throughout the country allow of assured calculations and precautions as to business ventures, and permit such a ratio to be established between expenses and income, that at the end of the fiscal year a profit, not a loss, may be counted upon.

This was the experience of our agriculturists during the second and last prosperous time of our farmers, 1846-60. During that period agriculture flourished; the tariff was low and there were only two panics, that of 1848, and the one of 1857, and the first (a non-protective one) should not be considered as precipitated by the tariff of 1846, except that some few suffered briefly in readjusting themselves to the changed, (though better), condition of the new tariff. The vast majority of the nation reaped enormous benefits from the changes inaugurated.

The panic of 1857 was caused by over-activity in trade speculation, and over-banking, and the tariff of the same year was really passed to help avert the panic threatening. It had the contrary effect, it is believed, for it still further, of course, unsettled rates for goods, when prices were already unstable. But the point is to be noted that in reality tariff change followed practical panic in this instance rather than practical panic tariff change. The high protective war tariffs, beginning in 1860, and increased for war purposes and granted largely as an offset for those internal revenue taxes laid to carry on the war, have been continued as a body ever since, as is well known, despite the internal revenue taxes having been abolished except on whiskey and tobacco. It is equally well known that farming has grown less and less remunerative since 1860, and that the panics of 1864, 1873, and 1884 have been unfortunate culminations of almost unceasing financial discomfort, which has been most forcibly exemplified during the last two months. Even now the financial fabric is in unstable equilibrium, and this latest monstrosity—the McKinley Bill—imposing the highest tariff we have ever exacted—an average duty of 60 per cent., and coming when a panic was due, bids fair to hurry us into another and a terrible financial panic. If it does not do so, it will be because our crops are too bountiful to allow it, but it will at least have made the agriculturists and all buyers of other commodities than agricultural produce pay more for all purchases. It will bring no more money into their pockets, but it must take out considerably more. The people appreciate this. The nation's pocket nerve has been touched. This is the meaning of the recent election, it seems to the writer. But whether the impending danger can be averted even if a prompt, though wise and slow reversal of tariff policy can be forced by the next Congress is doubtful, for unrest and timidity have been evoked and require time to be allayed before easy and orderly business operations will in general be resumed, unless indeed bountiful crops here and demand abroad once again reverse the logic of the situation.

Certain it is that our tariff laws must interfere as little as possible with the natural law of demand and supply in making prices, or we must be content to suffer from the instability that artificiality always brings with it.

Our plain duty is to enact as speedily as possible a tariff that shall by small but continued changes cut down our protective duties and substitute non-protective duties until our tariff is for revenue only; for thus and thus only can the vast majority of the agriculturists buy what they need most cheaply, and so find that to purchase necessaries does not cost them more than the total of their sales; and our exports of produce, chiefly owing to agricultural prosperity, would increase, thus materially helping to build up our general business so that the other nations will have to pay us, in the gold we require for comfortable management of our business, the growing trade balances against them.