The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-23 00:00:00

THE TARIFF.

The attention of Congress is invited to the importance
of making suitable modifications and reductions of the
rates of duty imposed by our present tariff lawa. The
object of imposing duties on imports should be to raise
revenue to pay the necessary expenses of Government.
Congress may, undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound
discretion, discriminate in arranging the rates of duty
on different articles; but the discrimination should be
within the revenue standard, and he made within the
view to raise money for the support of Government.
It becomes important to understand distinctly what is
meant by a revenue standard, the maximum of which
should not be exceeded in the rates of duty imposed. It
is conceded, and experience proves, that duties may be
laid so high as to diminish or prohibit altogether the im-
portation of any given article, and thereby lessen or de-
stroy the revenue, which, at lower rates, would be de-
rived from its importation. Such duties exceed the
revenue rates, and are not imposed to raise money for
the support of Government. If Congress levy a duty for
revenue, of one per cent. on a given article, it will pro-
duce a given amount of money to the Treasury, and will
incidentally and necessarily afford protection or advan-
tage to the amount of one per cent. to the home manu-
facturer of a similar or like article over the importer. If
the duty be raised to 10 per cent., it will produce a
greater amount of money, and afford greater pro-
tection. If it be still raised to 20, or 25, or
30 per cent., and if, as it is raised, the re-
venue derived rom it is found to be increased, the pro-
tection or advantage will also be increased ; but if it
be raised to 31 per cent., and it is found that the
revenue produced at that rate is less than 30 per cent.,
it ceases to be a revenue duty. The precise point in
the ascending scale of duties at which it is ascertained
from experience that the revenue is greatest, is the
maximum rate of duty which can be laid for the bona
fide purpose of cellecting money for the support of Go-
vernment. To raise the duties higher than that point,
and thereby diminish the amount collected, is to levy
them for protection merely, and not for revenue. As
long, then as Congress may gradually increase the rate
of duty on a given article, and the revenue is increased
by such increase of duty, they aro within the revenue
standard. When they go beyond that point, and, as
they increase the duties, the revenue is diminished or
destroyed, the act ceases to have for its object the rais-
ing of money to support Government, but is for protection
merely.
It does not follow that Congress should levy the

lawtseet ii.ty ea all articles of import which they will
Lear within the revenue standard, for such rates would
probably produce a much larger amount than the eco-
nomical administration of the Government would re-
quire. Nor does it follow that the duties on all articles
should be at the same, or a horizontal rate. Some ar-
la2les will bear a much higher revenue duty than others.
Below the maximum of the revenue standard Congress
may and ought to discriminate in the rates imposed,
taking care so to adjust them on different articles as to
produce in the aggregate the amount which, when
added to the proceeds of sales of public lands, may be
needed to pay the economical expenses of the Government.
In levying a tariff of duties Congress exercises the
taxing power, and for purposes of revenue may select
the objects of taxation. They may exempt certain
articles altogether, and permit their importation free of
duty. On others they may impose low duties. In
these classes should be embraced such articles of neces-
sity as are in general use, and especially such as are
consumed by the labourer and the poor, as well as by
the wealthy citizen.. Care should he taken that all the
great interests of the country, including manufactures,
agriculture, covamerce, navigation, and the mechanic
arts, should, as far as may be practicable, derive equal
advantage% From the incidental protection which a just
system of revenue duties may afford. Taxation, direct
or indirect, is a burden, and it should be so imposed as
zo operate as equally as may be on all classes, in the
aroportion. of their ability to bear it. To make the
taxing power an actual benefit to one class necessarily
increases the burden of the others beyond their pro-
portion, and would be manifestly unjust. The terms
15 protection to domestic industry," are of popular im-
aart ; but they should apply under a just system to all
the various branches of industry in our country. The
Armor or planter who toils yearly in his fields is engaged
n " domestic industry," and is as much entitled to have
his labour " protected," as the manufacturer, the man of
commerce, the navigator, or the mechanic, who are en-
gaged also in "domestic industry" in their different pur-
suits. The joint labours of all these classes constitute
the aggregate of the " domestic industry" of the nation,
and they are equally entitled to the nation's " protection."
No one of them can justly claim to be the exclusive re-
cipients of "protection," which can only be afforded
by increasing burdens an the " domestic industry" of
the others.
If these views be correct, it remains to inquire how
far the Tariff Act of 1842 is consistent with them. That
many of the provisions of that Act are in violation of the
cardinal principles here laid down all must concede. The
rates of duty imposed by it on some articles are pro-
hibitory, and on others so high as greatly to diminish
importations, and to produce a less amount of revenue
than would be derived from lower rates. They operate
as " protection merely," to one branch of " domestic in-
dustry," by taxing other branches.
By the introduction of minimums, or assumed and
false values, and by the imposition of specific duties, the
injustice and inequality of the Act of 1842, in its prac-
tical operations on different classes and pursuits, are
seen and felt. Many of the oppressive duties imposed
by it under the operation of these principles, range from
1 per cent. to more than 200 per cent. They are pro-
hibitory on some articles and partially so on others, and
bear most heavily on articles of common necessity, and
bat lightly on articles of luxury. It is so framed that
much the greatest burden which it imposes is thrown
on labour and the poorer classes, who are least able
to bear it, while it protects capital and exempts the rich
from paying their just proportion of the taxation required
fm. the support of government. While it protects the
capital of the wealthy manufacturer, and increases his
profits, it does not benefit the operative or labourer in
his employment, whose wages have not been increased
by it. Articles of prime necessity, or of coarse quality
and low price, used by the masses of the people, are, in
many instances, subjected by it to heavy taxes, while
articles of finer quality and higher price, or of luxury,
which can be used only by the opulent, are lightly taxed.
It imposes heavy and unjust burdens on the farmer, the
p!an!Pr, the commercial man, and those of all other pur-
suits, except the capitalist who has made his investments
in manufactures. All the great interests of the country
are not, as nearly as may be practicable, equally pro-
tected by it.
The Government in theory knows no distinction of
persons or classes, and should not bestow upon some fa-
vours and privileges which all others may not enjoy. It
was the purpose of its illustrious founders to base the
institutions which they reared upon the great and un-
changing principles of justice and equity, conscious that
if administered in the spirit in which they were con-
ceived they would be felt only by the benefits which they
suffused, and would secure for themselves a defence in
tie hearts of the people, more powerful than standing
armies, and all the means and appliances invented to
!ustain governments founded in injustice and oppression.
The well-known fact that the Tariff Act of 1842 was
passed by a majority of one vote in the Senate, and two
:n the House of Representatives, and that some of those
,vho felt themselves constrained, under the peculiar cir-
cumstances existing at the time, to vote in its favour, pro-
L!aimed its defects; and expressed their determination
to aid in its modification on the first opportunity, affords
strong and conclusive evidence that it was not intended
to be permanent, and of the expediency and necessity of
its thorongh revision.
In recommending to Congress a reduction of the pre-
sent rates of duty, and a revision and modification of the
Act of 1842, I am far from entertaining opinions un-
friendly to the manufacturers. On the contrary, I desire
to see them prosperous, as far as they can be so, without
imposing unequal burdens on other interests. The ad-
vantage, under any system of indirect taxation, even
reithin the revenue standard, must be in favour of the
manufacturing interest ; and of this no other interests
will complain.
I recommend to Congress the abolition of the minimum
principle, or assumed, arbitrary, and ;else value, and of
specific duties, and the substitution in their place of ad
valorem duties, as the fairest and most equitable indirect
tax which can be imposed. ,By the ad valorem principle all
articles are taxed according to their cost or value, and those
which are of inferior quality or of small cost bear only the
just proportion of the tax with those which are of supe-
risr quality or greater cost. The articles consumed by
all are taxed at the same rate. A system of ad valorem
revenue duties, with proper discriminations and proper
guards against frauds in collecting them, it is not
doubted will afford ample incidental advantages to the
manufacturers, and enable them to derive as great pro-
fits as can be derived from any other regular business.
It is believed that such a system, strictly within the re-
venue standard, will place the manufacturing interests
on a stable footing, and ensue to their permanent ai-
eautage, while it will, as firmly as may be practicable,
extend to all the great interests of the country the inci-
dental protection which can be afforded by our revenue
laws. Such a system, when once firmly established, would
be permanent, and not be subject to the constant com-
plaints, agitations, and changes which must ever occur,
wh •n duties are not laid for revenue, but for the "pro-
to( Lion merely" of a favoured interest.
In the deliberations of Congress on this subject, it is
hoped a spirit of mutual concession and compromise be-
tween conflicting interests may prevail, and that the
result of their labours may be crowned with the happiest
success.