Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-09-11

rived at is not furnished 1 know not the data upon
which is assumed that the esumoted reduction in the
duties hardware, contained in the statement OF the
Register OF the Treasury, is erroneous III this alleged in
Of duty will take place under the provisions OF the
10Th and 18th clauses the 2d section otthe law must
be presumed that their effect aud operation under
stool At the Treasury, they are estimated by The Regis
fer.
General Haync states that there will be levied under
the of 1892, nett revenue, protected articles of
595, and on the unprotected articles OF only S.
1927 1853 See his statement annexed to his letter In the
Mercury In examining this statements find that $780,,
$50 have been added 10 the amount of the duties pro-
eced articles, the difference arising from the change
in the pound sterling, without adding the difference ais
ing from this change to the duties unprotected articles,
which would amount to $7S,So5 II further appears that
$32i9S9 have been pm, the debit OF protected articles,
Tor duties Omitted upon woollens, cotton baggng twist,
yarn hardware, Sc" As the increase Of the duty upon
scse articles, aud upon Sattnets woollens, have al
ready remarked; will only add that the merchants
from whom have sought :or information, of opinion
that there will be increase IN the duties upon hardware
so that the ONLY OMISSION which l. shown npon any GER
tain data is that in which the Register has enormously
tnnated reduction Upon twist yarn and thread, and omit
ted TO make anaowance for the Increased duty upon
ing silk, both o which Gen Hayne considers TO he equal TO
S2659S Gen also observes, that" on looking at the
data assumed by Colonel Drayon the basis of his
laton. il will he that while in stating the aggregate
ducou So 07S he has taken the revenue lat
ter deductng draw backs and expenses Of coecon)
irving at the amount OF reduction the protected articles
he has made his calculation on the gross revenue wiz
SIS l26959, instead OF r. f01 567 Now is very clear
that the data be assumed in both cases, and
being equally clear that wbacks (being the amount of
duties restored to the importer goods that 10
into the consumption of the country constitute part
the public burdens the nett is the only basis
oil our calculations. Leaving out the expenses OF coec
ton and deducng the assumed amount OF the drawbacks
the former and present duties the protected articles
(accordng TO Col Drayoas estimate Of these du,ies(
would reduce the amount of the estimated reduction the
protected articles by about $500, 900 reduction was
made by me for drawbacks in the aggregate, and does
me, that they have any connection with
paratve statement intended 10 show the reduction the
amount OF duty given Having made these
erences TO particular passages In the letter. accompanied
with the foregoing explanatory remarks the underwrien
calculations submitted establish the correctness OF
my statements and deductions, and in those Of
General Hayne."
1t is further observed by General Hayne tina, have
committed ga mistake (anounng to $32 362) in calcuat
ing the difference the pound sterling Sl45l4 COZ at
$l075l60, instead Of Sl,l6li72." In my calculation
did not assume the difference to be per Sii,
61i657, but only about 25 per being on I0S the
difference being included in the Sl4,5li,657.
Although General Iayne has been informed, that where
importer is compelled pay duties in cash. his
equal cat the very lowest to from 10 to IL per
the duty merchant in credit money at
per cent cannot perceive that this substitution of casl
for credit duties subject him greater loss than
the amount OF that interest
General Hayne says "that in estimating the value OF
the concession which supposed have been by
the bill, ii to be entirely forgotten that from
the fall of prices which have taken place 1925
der TO bring down the specific duties low rate as was
fixed by that act, at The time IL passed. very con-
derable reduction of duty necessary. Whether iron
cheaper when the late tariff passed. than had
been IN 1928 Ignorant, whether il will be cheaper
or dcarer hereafter than 1t now is will undertake TO
conecture; but it must be obvious whatever may be its
price, after the act of 1882 shall into operation that
Its cost will be diminished in ratio proporionate to the re-
duction of the duties by that
In the estimate of the nett revenue under tho law OF
1892 which Is made by General Hayne he takes three
data two OF which, appear TO me, TO be plainly
Gus Neither the mportaions of 1881, nor the estimated
importaions OF 1882. constitutes the proper basis of calc
laon Tor the future revenue. The average
ceips from the customs for the last six years the only
just foundation for an estimate This subject General
Hayne the receipts from the public lands in 1881
to be the same as the average receipts from this source
during the last six years Now am satisfied that the
average "oeePts fnS the public lands, for tho last six
years. do moi exceed IT they equal $2OOO000. From
the average nett receipts of the Customs and the public
lands, Tor tue last six years, General Hayne deducts
S5S7O7S The estimated reduction under the Act of 1892
but the earliest Of the Acts Of May 1890 did not 90 in
TO operation before the LIST Of January 1891 if his
mate OF the average receipts from customs for the last
years, embraces any PERIOD subsequently those
going into operation, the estimated reduction of S5IS7-
07S, on apply period If the six wears were
before that period the reduction which took place by the
Acts of May, 1880, would include the whole amount
reduced The six years must have been before that period
Tor as the Acts OF May $780, did not go effect before
January 1881 and 1882 the influence of the reduction
casoned by them would not be felt in tie receipts before
1882 and 1898: II consequently follows that the reduction
inclusive OF that which estimated to arise from the
of May, $780, must be deducted from the average nett
amount OF receipts for the last years. Surprising this
In round numbers be ST. 600, 900 SIS 900 900 would
be left the probable revenue instead of 2I 600
600, estimated by Gen Haynes and the oveiesimat-
ed receipts from the public lands amounting 10 81 500 900
deducted, 500 900 would remain as the probable
nett amount OF the future revenue taking the average nett
receipts OF the last six years, the basis OF calculation
Having replied to the objections which have been made
to various parts OF the address my constituents
deavored by and by facts the popety
the vote which for the passage of the late act
and the correctness my allegations that by it, the duties
were considerably diminished, the from the Gus
toms reduced by several millions odious provis.
Ions in the existing tariff repealed leave the inte.
gence and candor Of my fellow citizens determine whe.
Their have udciously and honestly discharged the trust
which they reposed In In conclusion will merely
add that my statements and calculations supported b
the most authentic documents and the respectable in
formation within my power TO procure and that | con-
scentiously beliye them TO be correct
+Vnluo of Imports Duties as modified
year to Sept 1880. by act ofJuly 1892
whole importation, SjS 1865 ii fo6 o5ol
Add difference in pound sterling, 5s3,Fs3
hH os OF interest from cash duties Sc shortened Credits 459g3
Total amount Of duties under new Bill s16 O7n ooo
or which protected articles, allowing difference in
pound sterling and payment Of duties, I17I2665
Leaves duty on unprotected articles Of 1885, ,56i
Which exceeds Gen. Haynes estimate By aiIaO ON
ow LOT Da"oacks the reduction protected articles will
Dates under existing oo -, -. Duties under
tariff, s9s3l,T7l bill, sll7iaea5
Loss drawback, 100000 Less drawback, ,5OO,OOO
eli y33l,T72 slO9l9665
Mex reductions, Iil9,IO7
eliaol,72