Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1831-11-17


which he had now ready to distribute to
every member Of this body
Mr.. COKE, Of Pennsylvania, inquired
Of the gentleman what was the remedy
for all this?
MIR. BRowN, of Boston, said, that in
answer to the inquiry of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, he would state few
facts, which would throw some light on
the subject Of the protection actually en-
joyed by the manufacturers of cloths IN
the United States. If he rightly under
from New York, it would turn out that
the manufactures received neither forty
five nor forty per cent protection. The
report Of the committee on evaslons Of
the revenue, went to show that seven
eighths Of all the cloth imported Into this
city was on foreign account, and was nm
ported by foreign hands. -Four OF those
foreigners had imported between five and
six millions of yards OF broadcloths alone,
were entered at 6s. Sd. or 6s. Cd. (Which
last price was the highest that could be
admitted under the dollar minimum) and
which consequently paid only 67 2 cts.
duty per yard, while its actual cost was
9s., equal to So, and the charges would
still increase that amount. Let this be
considered, and it would be seen that the
amount Of protection was neither 40 nor
40 per cent, but would not exceed % per
cent But to ascertain whnt was the pro-
lection actually realized, they must go
further, and remember that there was
high duty on wool That duty he con-
sidered as perfectly proper and just
Though he was himself manufacturer,
he would be the last man to wish it re-
pealed. (AppIause.) No, not even on
coarse S'ool-becausc the farmers had
found this to operate in practice az pro-
lection to the better sorts.
The amount of wool already raised was
nearly equal in value to the so much
boasted cotton crop of the south; and
would soon exceed it in value. Why
then take off the protecting duty: lie
anticipated great multiplication Of our
flocks-and every increase of this kind
was direct benefit to those 'lrmcrs who
raised grain; because it converted pro-
ducer into a consumer, and raised the
price oftheir produce. He should there
fore, he repeated it, be the last to advo-
cate repeal of the duty on wool. But
that being duly collected, md the duties
on cloths evaded, the manufacturer was
in fact left with protection that amount
ed to almost nothing at all. Until the
flocks of the country became more multi
piled he must expect to pursue his busi-
ness at little profit and even at loss; but
this was state of things that would scon
be remedied. In the meanwhile if he
imported his wool and paid the duty, he
paid greater amount on the wool in
yard of his cloth than the foreign agent
paid on yard ofcloth itself. He spoke
from experience. He had been long en-
gagged in the business, and he had al
ways said that the manufacturer could
do better business under the tariff law Of
1916 than that of 1898, if rhe existing
frauds are permitted to continue. The
law of 1880 was enacted with view to
remedy the defects Of that of 1923, and it
provided the penalty of forfeiture, if
goods should be entered at false valu-
alton with intent 20 dctraud the revenue
Now he would ask whether the entering
of goods under an invoice price of 6s Sd
when all judges who looked at them
knew they cost 9s, could be done with
any other inte mt than an intent to dciraud
the revenueE But late opinion had al
lowed the importer TO bring the oath of a
person in England to prove what was the
cost there. Such oaths could easily be
- T. .fIl
toned an instance where a manufactures
had made 200 pieces Of cloth for which
he asked 8s yard-but offered to give
the American purchaser one hundred of
them at 6s and the other at 9s $50
that an oath might be taken as TO the re-
al cost of the goods in England.
For this state of things, MIR. b. said
he knew no remedy, but adhering to the
Laws and putting them into execution.
The Tariff Law of 1923 SAYS that the
true value of the cloth in England is the
criterion-ts cost has nothing to do with
the duty. But late decision OF he believ-
ed) Judge Betts,* had laid it down that
if merchant proves that the cloth costs
what it is invoiced at, the charge is no
fraud; but surely when cloths worth 9s.
are charged at 6s. Cd they ought to be
confscated. But there was another
difficulty in the enforcement Of the law
When, as in late case, $500 pieces of
cloth had been found overchanged, all
that was done was to raise the prico to
the next minimum-and exact the duty
and when this duty was paid, the inn
porter and his goods were suffered to go
without further moestation, although he
had been guilty Of a glaring attempt to