mber, 1882, a project for a bill
intended to reduce the tariff at least twenty per cent. The bill based
on this was reported from the Committee on Ways and Means on January 16,
1883, and was debated until February 20, and then abandoned in the House
for a bill which had passed the Senate.

The Senate Bill was in the form of an amendment to an Internal Revenue
Bill already before that house. It was passed on February 20 under the
leadership of the young Senator from Rhode Island, Nelson W. Aldrich,
and was sent to conference by the House a week later. In conference a
new bill was substituted for the Senate Bill. This was hurried through
both houses in time to receive the signature of Arthur on March 3, 1883.

The tariff of 1883 failed to meet the demand for a revision. Its debates
show the difficulties attendant upon the construction of any tariff.
Congress was divided upon the theory of protection, both parties
including high protectionists as well as tariff-for-revenue men. The
revenue-producing side of the tariff increased the complexities, since
every change in a rate might affect the standing of the Treasury. In
addition to the economic and the fiscal needs, quite serious enough,
there was the tireless influence of the lobby of manufacturers, pressing
for single rates which should aid this business or that. Few Congressmen
were sufficiently detached in interests to be entirely dispassionate as
they framed the schedules. Many did not even try to disguise their
desire to promote local interests. Neither party had a mandate on the
tariff in 1882, but when the act had become a law it was clear that most
of the Republican leaders voted cheerfully for all the protection they
could get, that the intent to reduce the revenue had failed, and that
what little hope of revision remained was in the opposition party. "The
kaleidoscope has been turned a hair's breadth," said the _Nation_, "and
the colors transposed a little, but the component parts are the same."
It was deliberate bad faith throughout, urged a Democratic leader, and
"finished this magnificent shaft [of the tariff policy] which they had
been for years erecting, and crowned it with the last stone by repealing
the internal tax on playing cards and putting a twenty per cent tax upon
the Bible."

Throughout the tariff debate no argument had been used more steadily
than that of the protectionists that protection to labor was their aim.
The degradation of "pauper labor