[15.] Richardson, Messages, iv, 516. Pakenham, no. 6, Jan. 28, 1847. Sen. 2; 29, 2 (Walker, report, Dec. 9, 1846). Ho. 6; 30, 1 (Id.., report, Dec. 8, 1847). Ho. 7; 30, 2 (Id.., report, Dec. 9, 1848). Sen. 105; 29, 2 (Id.to Dallas, Feb. 1, 1847). Sen. 392; 29, 1 (Id.to Polk, June 15, 1846). Taussig, Tariff Hist., 115. Welles papers. Polk, Diary, Jan. 2, 1847. Niles, Jan. 2, 1847, p. 288. Boston Courier, Feb. 17, 1848. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, pp. 281, 298. N. Y. Herald (weekly), Jan. 9, 1847. (Pessimists) [345]G. A. Worth to Van Buren, May 20, 1847.
In Dec., 1847, Polk had to admit that a deficiency of $15,729,114 on June 30, 1848, was probable. The British minister reported that one reason for proposing the tax on tea and coffee was a wish to defeat anticipated attempts of the protectionists to repeal the tariff of 1846. It was suspected that Walker made the appeal to Congress in order to display his influence or to relieve that body of responsibility for modifying the tariff it had so recently voted. The motives of the House were mixed. Some members doubtless objected to the plan on principle, others because they wished to be consistent with their action in accepting that tariff, others because the estimated return from such a tax ($2,500,000 or $3,000,000 per year) did not seem enough to meet the requirements, and others, perhaps, to rebuke what struck them like dictation on Walker’s part; but the main considerations appear to be those mentioned in [chap. xxxiv] (e.g., [p. 285].) The vote in the House was taken Jan. 2, 1847. Walker persisted, but without effect. Benton’s idea was adopted in 1854. See “Public Lands, Bill to reduce and graduate the price of,” in Senate index of Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 and 2 sess.; 30 Cong., 1 sess., etc.
[16.] Ho. 6; 30, 1 (Walker, report, Dec. 8, 1847). Ho. 7; 30, 2 (Id.., report, Dec. 9, 1848). [13]Pakenham, no. 147, Dec. 29, 1846. Stockton, circular, Aug. 15, 1846. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 905 (Marcy); 930, 1085 (Scott); 931 (Worth). London Times, June 8, 1846. Richardson, Messages, iv, 548–9, 570, 672. Vattel, book 3, chap. 9, sect. 161. Balt. American, Feb. 17, 1847. Wash. Union, Apr. 12, 1847. N. Y. Herald (weekly), May 1, 1847. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 552, 558, 561 (Polk); 553 (Walker). Niles, Apr. 24, 1847, p. 113. Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1075 (Shubrick). [47]Shubrick, Apr. 15, 1848. [76]Lavallette, proclam., Oct. 26, 1847. Sen. 24; 30, 1 (Polk, Message). Ho. 20; 30, 2 (Polk, Message). Polk, Diary, Mar. 10, 1847.
We do not positively know that Walker originated the idea of the tariff in Mexican ports, nor that it had any relation to the tea and coffee tax; but one would naturally assume as much, and so the Washington Union stated (Niles, Apr. 24, 1847, p. 113). At first, however, Walker did not perceive that the tariff would have to rest upon the President’s military authority. Contributions took the place of the pillage formerly practised in war. An advantage of the plan, perhaps not contemplated at first, was that it would greatly discourage smuggling, and therefore, since imports would mostly have to pass the inspection of American officers, contraband could much more fully be excluded. This tariff was fiercely attacked in Congress, but the position of the Executive was impregnable. Complaint was also made that Americans as well as neutrals had to pay it; but had they not done so, they would have been able to defy competition, foreign nations would have complained, the Mexicans would have benefited by the low prices of merchandise, and the United States would have obtained no revenue.
The American policy prior to March 31, 1847, is shown by Walker’s circular of June 30, 1846 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 158) and by Marcy’s [63]instructions to the commanding officer at Tampico, Dec. 15, 1846. The latter said: Only United States vessels may enter, and those only when carrying articles produced in the United States or imports upon which United States duties have been paid, and on all such goods no duties will be charged. “But in a spirit of accommodation” clearances to Tampico of cargoes of foreign products, etc., in American vessels will be granted (duties having been paid) without being unloaded in the United States. Vessels admitted at Tampico may take out return cargoes of the property of Americans or neutrals without paying export duties; and specie belonging to neutrals may be freely exported. Indeed this export of specie should be encouraged, since it prevents Mexico from seizing the means of waging war. Pakenham complained that this policy would give American goods (which would not have to pay a duty) a monopoly of the Mexican market; but it seemed impossible at this time to run the risk of the military injury liable to result from admitting neutral vessels generally. He seems to have felt inclined to protest, but he did not find that the ministers of France, Spain and Germany intended to do so ([13]no. 147). Previous to Dec. 15, 1846, American goods had been extensively smuggled into Mexico across the Rio Grande, and of course that process continued.
[17.] Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 975, 1014 (Marcy); 1083 (Shubrick). Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 552–76, 583, 585 (Marcy); 585 (circular); 586 (Walker); 951 (Mason). Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1073, 1086 (Shubrick). Sen. 14; 30, 1, pp. 9 (Marcy); 10 (Walker). London Times, June 8, 1846; June 15, 1847. Polk, Diary, June 11; Nov. 6, 1847. Richardson, Messages, iv, 531–2, 548. [52]Chargé Martin, no. 31, May 15, 1847. [13]Consul Glass, July 12, 1848. Ho. 6; 30, 1 (Walker, report, Dec. 8, 1847). Ho. 7; 30, 2 (Id.., report, Dec. 9, 1848). Constitutionnel, May 15, 1847. [13]Mora to Palmerston, May 19, 1847. Nat. Intelligencer, Apr. 24, 1847. [48]Mason to Perry, Apr. 3; June 16, 1847.
In some cases the Mexican tariff was reduced very much more than one half, and many articles of daily use, that had previously been prohibited, became available. No tonnage dues were assessed on vessels (chartered by the United States) laden exclusively with supplies for our army or navy ([60]Marcy to Scott, May 10, 1847), and United States officers, soldiers and sailors were exempted from the operation of the order to pay duties (Richardson, Messages, iv, 548). At Matamoros, Tampico and Vera Cruz the military governors acted as collectors. At places held by the navy, naval officers did so. On the Pacific coast it proved necessary to modify the tariff. June 11, 1847, the regulations were somewhat modified (Polk, Diary, June 11), and additional changes were made in Nov., 1847 (Polk, Diary, Nov. 6; Sen. 14; 30, 1, p. 11). July 31, 1847, the duty on books was made 20 per cent ad valorem (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 585).
Chargé Martin reported from Paris that the French newspapers, alarmed by the protest of the Mexican consul at Havre, called on their government to demand guaranties from ours. Martin justly took the position that our admitting French commerce to Mexican ports was a pure favor, to be enjoyed at the risk of those caring to take advantage of it, but expressed the opinion freely that in the treaty of peace we should protect the interests invited by our policy, as in fact we pledged ourselves to do and did (Walker, report, Dec. 8, 1847 in Ho. 6; 30, 1, 619; chap. xxxii, p. 468).
[18.] N. Y. Herald (weekly), May 1, Dec. 4, 1847. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1037 (Marcy). Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1148 (Shubrick). [13]Consul Giffard, no. 37, Oct. 20, 1847. Richardson, Messages, iv, 548. [13]Consul Glass, Dec. 1, 1847; July 12, 1848. [75]Hacienda to Relaciones, Dec. 3, 1847. [75]Gov. Tamaulipas to Relaciones, Dec. 10, 23, 1847. 75Gates, order, Nov. 27, 1847. [76]Hacienda to Guerra, Dec. 3, 29, 1847. [13]Crampton, no. 30, Aug. 13, 1847. [76]—— to Amador, Feb. 2, 1848.
The governor of Tamaulipas wrote frankly to the central government that prohibition would merely promote robbery and smuggling while injuring good Mexicans. He therefore did nothing except to collect a duty. Yet Gates, commanding at Tampico, had to send escorts with traders, and could not fully protect them.