University of Virginia Library


Within two days after Duane's dispatch appeared in the Aurora, it was reprinted in at least three New York newspapers.[15] The


Page 214
following week, the New York editors printed the formal reports of the Philadelphia meeting[16] and the Daily Advertiser printed a short comment on the proposed duty. It called attention to the long article in the Philadelphia Gazette, and repeated the Gazette's mistake in thinking that the duty was an additional twenty per cent.[17] By this time the trade, ready to go into action, requested the printers and booksellers to meet at the Old Coffee House at seven o'clock, Saturday evening, February twenty-seventh.[18] According to the official report, Samuel Campbell was chosen chairman and George F. Hopkins, secretary. After the circular letter from Philadelphia was read, it was unanimously resolved to cooperate with the brethren of Philadelphia, and the Union. A petition to the House of Representatives was drafted, adopted, and ordered engrossed.[19] The unofficial report, however, told a much more interesting story. Cheetham and Denniston's American Citizen published it in the course of an article which defended the increase and which stated that Binny and Ronaldson opposed it because it would create competitors. According to the Citizen:
The meeting consisted of sixteen printers, booksellers, and type importers. It was with some difficulty that a chairman was obtained. Mr. Samuel Campbell was at length prevailed upon to take it, and Mr. George F. Hopkins was appointed Secretary. Mr. James Swords opened the business of the meeting by reading a letter which he had received from the chairman and secretary of the meeting of the printers of Philadelphia. This letter merely stated what they had done, and invited their co-operation; it entered not into the merits of the proposed additional duty. Mr. Swords then stated that he had mentioned his reception of the letter privately to Mr. Pintard, (now editor of the Daily Advertiser) who had prepared a suitable remonstrance against the proposed increase of duty. Mr. Denniston asked for specific information of the nature of the meeting—what the additional duty proposed by the committee of commerce and manufacture against which they intended to petition? Mr. Lang, alias Lawyer Lang, then rose, and moved that Mr. Denniston should give to himself the information which he himself required, and instantly dropt upon his chair. Finding that no information could be given him, Mr. Denniston produced the report of the committee of commerce and manufactures in which they propose an additional duty on types. This was read by the secretary. The meeting were


Page 215
astonished. Because Mr. Duane stated that a duty of 20 per cent. would be laid on types, it had been conceived by the typo's present, that this meant 20 per cent. additional duty, which added to the 12½ now paid, makes 32½ per cent. Whereas the report proposes an additional duty of 7½ per cent. only, which, if added to the 12½ now paid, would make the whole duty on types amount to 20 per cent. On this misconception the meeting was called. It is probable the Philadelphia meeting laboured under the same error. Mr. Denniston examined the subject, and stated two grounds for enquiry. 1st. Whether the establishment of foundaries would not benefit the country? 2d. If so, what means ought to be adopted to give them efficacy? He was decidedly in favor of the legislature affording such aid as would enable us to cast our own types, and concluded that this aid ought to consist of an adequately increased duty on the importation of foreign types. Mr. James Swords acknowledged the correctness of Mr. Denniston's remarks, but was of opinion, that to establish foundaries sufficient to supply our wants was impracticable. After a few words in reply from Mr. Denniston, the Chairman very gravely, if not very sagely, informed the meeting that they did not come there to discuss the subject, but to co-operate without discussion with their brethren of Philadelphia. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Swords are both importers of types, and, of course, interested in the non-increase of duty. Many of the Philadelphia meeting are also importers. This is sufficient to account for their opposition. Discussion being thus closed, Mr. Pintard's memorial was read and passed in the affirmative with the exception of Mr. Denniston's vote. The memorial, however, underwent some alteration. It was written under the impression that the proposed increase of duty was 20 per cent; and as this was viewed as tantamount to a prohibition of the importation of foreign types, the memorial was couched in correspondent terms. The error being at length discovered it underwent a suitable alteration. The public are left to draw their own conclusions from this statement of true facts.[20]
Two days later, the American Citizen reprinted Duane's long Aurora article[21] and on the same day the Evening Post defended the attack on the duty, declaring that the only persons who oppose them are Duane and Cheetham, "two foreigners." It concluded with a jeer at Thomas Jefferson as well as at his "protege," Duane:
Blest era of philosophism and philanthropy, which knows no distinction between natives and foreigners, citizens and aliens, other than forever to give an indiscriminate preference to the latter over the former![22]

And so on March 8, 1802, this petition was read in the House of Representatives:


Page 216

To the Honorable the House of Representatives of the United States;

The Memorial of the Printers and Booksellers of the City of New York, respectfully sheweth,

That, thro' the medium of the public papers and private correspondence, your memorialists have been informed that a proposition is now before your Honorable House for imposing a duty of Twenty per cent. on imported printing Types.

Conceiving this measure to be highly impolitic in itself, as directly calculated to do extensive injury to all persons concerned in printing, and indirectly to tax every reader in the United States for the emolument of the few persons who are concerned in[23] the business of Type-founding, they trust your Hon. House will not give its sanction to a measure which, according to the practical knowledge, and the most diligent inquiry of your memorialists, they believe to be founded in error and fraught with extensive mischief.

They beg leave to submit to your Honourable House, that at present there exists but one Type-Foundery[24]—in the United States—that they presume it is wholly out of the power of this concern to supply a twentieth part of the demand from printers in America: That there are many species of letters not made at this foundery which are essentially necessary in order properly to conduct the printing business—That the existing duty of 12 1/2 per cent. on printing types appears to be amply sufficient as a protecting duty to this manufacture, as the Foundery at present established in Philadelphia can afford to make and supply Types at a rate quite as reasonable as those imported from Europe.

On these grounds your memorialists respectfully trust that your Honourable House, taking the premises into consideration, will not impose a further duty on Printing Types, which would almost amount to a prohibition; a result which your memorialists, from their professional knowledge and pursuits, are persuaded would operate as a public evil, and would materially and injuriously affect the whole business of Printing and Bookselling throughout the United States.

All which is humbly submitted.
Signed in behalf of the associate meeting of the Printers and Booksellers of the City of New York, by

Samuel Campbell, Chairman. George F. Hopkins, Secretary. New York, 27th Febry. 1802. Ebenezr. Belden for himself & in behalf of the proprietor of the Commercial Advertiser. John Lang. John Turner. Wm. A Davis. Evert Duyckinck. Arthr. B. Tucker. Robert Falconer. Thomas Fenwick. Thos. S. Arden. John Crookes, for himself, and in behalf of the Proprietor of the Mercantile Advertiser. Wm. Falconer. Louis Jones. Mich1 Burnham for himself and in behalf of the proprietor of the New York Evening Post. Phinehas Heard. John Black. Ezra Sargeant. Ming & Young. G. & R. Waite. Charles Smith.


Page 217
John Tiebout. Geo Jansen. Cornelius Davis. Wm Durell. Will Barlas. S. W. Andrews. Thomas Swords. James Oram. Eglinton M. Boyle. John Reid. John Brown. Abrm Ogier Stansbury. Hugh Gaine. Matthew L. Davis. Ph Arnold. Peter A Mesier. Edwd. Mitchell. Naphtali Judah. Isaac Collins. Thomas Collins. Robert Wilson. John Pintard in behalf of the proprietors of the Daily Advertiser. Amos Butler. Jona Seymour. Stephen Stephens. Thomas B Jansen. J. Harrisson. Thomas Kirk. James Swords. Lewis Nichols & C°. M. McFarlane. Nath1 Bell. Paul R. Johnson.

The leading members of the book trade were not the only New Yorkers who protested. The Franklin Typographical Association, one of the earliest and least known of the typographical societies, forwarded this memorial, read in the House of Representatives on March 15, 1802:

To the Hon. the House of Representatives of the United States.

The Memorial of the undersigned members of the Franklin Typographical Association of the City of New York respectfully sheweth . . .

That your memorialists have been informed, through the medium of the Public Prints, that there is a proposition before your Honourable House, to impose a duty of twenty per cent. on imported Printing Types.

Under a full conviction, that every measure entered into by your Honorable House is intended to benefit the Union, your memorialists beg leave to suggest the impropriety of the proposed duty, and hope to be able to show, that, so far from being a beneficial act, it would be highly injurious, not only to your memorialists, but to all persons whose occupations are connected with the Printing Business, either as Printers, Book-binders or Paper-makers . . .

First---Your memorialists beg leave to state, that the addition of 7½ per cent. would almost prohibit the importation of Types; and as the business of Type-founding is yet but in its infancy in the United States, (the present foundery in Philadelphia not being able to furnish a twentieth part of the Type in general use, and being totally destitute of the Oriental, and of almost all the ornamental characters) resort must be had to the measure of importing Books; a measure which the master-printers and Booksellers of New York, by forming themselves into an association, have been patriotically endeavoring to suppress, and which would, almost immediately, deprive two thirds of the Journeymen Printers in the United States, of their means of subsistence, not to mention the great number of Boys, who are at present learning the Printing business, on which they must hereafter depend for a livelihood.

Second---The business of Printing being very expensive to establish, from the high price of materials, very few of those, who are obliged to resort to journey-work when they become free, ever have it in their power to realize a capital sufficient to commence business on their own account; and the contemplated


Page 218
additional duty, by enlarging the barrier, would still diminish their number, to the very great injury of the whole.

Third---As the characters for Printing Books in the dead Languages cannot be had in the United States, nor is it reasonable to expect that they will be furnished for forty years to come; and as there are a number of other works which cannot be done without European materials, all such characters and materials, at least, must, of necessity, be imported from Europe. . . . The consequence would be, that the printing of such Books must either be relinquished, or they must be done at such an expense, as would render them dearer to purchasers, than those of the same kind imported. This would be a severe blow to printing in this country, rising, as it now is, rapidly, to excellence:—and, indeed, in a short time, almost every description of Books must be had from Europe; which would not only distress your memorialists, in a very severe degree, but destroy, in a great measure, the business of Book-binding, and Paper-making, and give a heavy check to the dissemination of learning and useful knowledge.

Your memorialists beg leave, also, respectfully to state, that as no art is more conducive to the promotion of learning, liberty and happiness, than that of Printing, so it would seem the policy of the government of our country, to leave unshackled every article appertaining to it; and as the taking off the duty on Regulus of Antimony will be a very considerable encouragement to any foundery that may be established in the United States; and as the present Philadelphia foundery has been, and must still continue to be liberally encouraged; and, in fact, as Types may be here considered as a raw material to manufacture books; in order to promote the manufacture within ourselves, and thereby to prevent the importation of foreign Editions, we humbly submit to your Honourable House the propriety of taking off, altogether, the duty on Printing Types, or at least of reducing it, so that it may not, in any degree, impede the importation of them; and of laying an additional one, even more than equivalent, on imported Books, for the encouragement of the printing business. . . . If such encouragement be given, no doubt can be entertained of its being fully adequate, in a very few years, to the supply of not only the ordinary works of instruction, and amusement, but of the higher order of classics. But if shackled in the way which has been proposed in your Honourable House, your memorialists foresee an end of enterprize in Printing, and will probably have to seek some other means of obtaining subsistence.—To take off the duty on Types, and to lay an additional one on Books, your memorialists deem not only a wise, but a necessary measure, as the number of people now employed in the printing business, is very large, and is daily increasing.

Your memorialists beg leave further to remark, that all those who have arrived at any degree of eminence in the business of Type-founding in Europe, have so great a share of encouragement at home, as to render it highly improbable that any of them would emigrate to this country: Therefore we must expect,


Page 219
at best, if the duty takes place, to have those only (if any should come) who have been but newly established, or who might make their first commencement after their arrival here: consequently, we should still labor under the heavy disadvantage of having but imperfect founderies, and be obliged still to pay the heavy duty; or, which is more probable, import the Books which we should be unable to print. And your memorialists would add, for the information of those of your Honorable House who may not be acquainted with the nature of the Type founding business, or may not have had leisure to make sufficient inquiry, that it is such as to require, at, least, from fifteen to twenty years, before a foundery can be made in any manner perfect: And the truth of this assertion will appear manifest, when it is considered, that the foundery of Mesrs. Binney & Ronaldson, in Philadelphia, had been established in Europe for several years previous to its removal to this country, which took place at least six years ago, and they cannot now furnish a single perfect fount of common Type, owing to the labor and time indispensably necessary to cut the matrixes, &c. &c.—

Independent of these considerations, it must be obvious to all; that if the additional duty is laid on, the domestic founders will greatly enhance the price of their Types, which must, of course, occasion a rise on all kinds of Printing Work, and operate as a tax on every reader; from the student in college, to the peruser of the daily newspapers, throughout the United States.—

All which is humbly submitted.
John Clough, President
Walter W. Hyer, Vice President

John Hardcastle. S. W. Andrews. Robert Crumbie. John M. Williams. Harris Sage. Elisha Hosford. A. Menzies. John Hamill. Henry Wm Peckwell. John Moffat. Wm W. Vermilye. Joseph Pudney. E. B D Murphy. William T. Stockton. Charles Wiley. T. White. E. Hammond. Daniel Dodge. George Bruce. Robert Wilson. Henry C. Southwick. Richard Crooker. Thomas ONeill. Alexander McCarthy. E. Bowles. James Waterman. John Minor. Peter Jackson. John H. Sherman. Thomas Ringwood. Robert Hinchman. Joseph Newton. James H. Looker. Joseph Whartnaby. John Thorburn. James Thomson. Richard Smith. Samuel Marks. J. W. Tillman. Koertenes Schenck. Gineva [?] Salmon [?] William Lucy. Henry Gird, Junr. T. M. Tillman. Thos. Campbell. Monteith McFarlane. John Hogg. John Freeman. Elliot Hopkins. Wm. Pelsue. Godfrey Bowman. Alex Wilson. P. B. Gleeson. R. Saunders. James Holmes.