Posted by Mark Liberman
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=72876&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tariffs
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=72876
With all the recent news about tariffs, I wondered where the word came from. So I consulted the OED:
< Italian tariffa ‘arithmetike or casting of accounts’ (Florio), ‘a book of rates for duties’ (Baretti), = Spanish tarifa, Portuguese tarifa, < Arabic taʿrīf notification, explanation, definition, article, < ʿarafa in 1st conj. to notify, make known. So French tarif.
The OED glosses the modern meaning (its Sense 2) as
An official list or schedule setting forth the several customs duties to be imposed on imports and exports; a table or book of rates; any item of such a list, the impost (on any article); also the whole body or system of such duties as established in any country.
The earliest citation for that sense is from 1592.
But interestingly, the word tariff isn't used in the text of the U.S. Constitution — the concept is referenced in longer or more general phrases:
In Section 10: Powers Denied to the States, it says
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
And Section 8: Powers of Congress includes
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; […]
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
And the word's one use in the Federalist Papers is in an older and more general sense, as part of the defense of the 3/5 rule in Federalist No. 54,"The Apportionment of Members Among the States"
The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants. "This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain?
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=72876&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tariffs
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=72876