Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-03-06
= -
CGNGsss1 @SENNA6l.
MIR. McDUFFIITS REPORT AGAINST TIL
TARIFF

MIR. McDUFFIES REPORT AGAINST TIE
TARIFF.
HOUSE OF VES-FEp. s, 1882.
MIR. McDUrrIE, from the Committee of WAYS
and Means, TO which the subject had been referred,
made the following Report:
The Committee of Ways and Means i'm obetli-
ence to the order of the House, have had under
consideration so much of the Message of the
President of the United States as relates lo Gre
licvng the people from tho burdens of unnc-
ccssary taxation," after tho payment of the
Public Debt, and now beg leave TO submit the
following report:
I'm discharging the duty thus assigned To them,
the Committee have deemed il Indispensable To dc
tcrmlnc the preliminary qucstion-What should he
the annual expenditure of the Government after the
cxtiugishmcnt of the Public Debt? During the
three last years of Mr. MonrocS Administration the
average annual expenditures for all Objects exclu-
sve of the Public Dcbt, less than ten millions
of dollars When it is considered, therefore tmt
the annual amount of disbursements for Rcyolu-
tonary pensions is now very greatly reduced and
that the expenditure for this object, as well as Tor
erecting Notifications and building ships will be pro-
grcssively reduced and must reach very low point
I'm the course of Il few years, the Committees are of
opinion That eleven millions of dollars will bc album
dainty sufficient for all the necessary disbursements
of the Government when relieved from the cl,nrpr
of the Public Debt. In this estimate they have al
lowed one million of dollars and the sums which
may be released from existing objects of appropria-
ton, To meet the various demands, of a contingent
nature, to which the Public Treasury may he liable
The income from the public lands, and the divi-
dendS of Bank stock, say nothing of canal slork
cannot be reasonably estimated AT less sum than
two millions of dollars. There will therefore re-
main only nine millions be provided bv duties
on imports; and the Committee have endeuyorcd so
To adjust these duties as to produce this sum i'm
manner most consistent with "cq,lal Justice to all
our national interests"
The amount of foreign merchandise imported for
consumption during the last year was nearly eighty
millions of dollars. And though ilIjs greatly exceed
O. Inc Of any Sin
material reduction of the duties would certainly
augment the quantity of merchandise imported the
Committee would deem il not cXravagant to assume
the operations of the last year the basis of their
calculation for future years. To avoid, however,
the hazard of n deficit in the public revenue, they
have estimated the annual amount ol the imports
paying duties at only sCVCnty-iWo millions of dol
lars and on this basis have reported bill imposing
duty of ~ 10 per cent. al valorem upon all To-
reign merchandise with the exception of such arti-
clcs now admitted duty free or at a duty of
less than IL ~ per cent. They have provided,
however, for gradual reduction of The duties on
such imports as come IN competition with domestic
manufactures.
In adopting general system of nd valorcm du-
tics, the Committee have been governed principally
by TWO considerations In the first place, a specific
duty is obnoxious to tile strong objection that cvics
the same tax on articles OF inferior quality, conslm-
ed by the poorer classes, that it eyics similar
ticlcs of the very best qualify and highest price, con-
sumcd almost exclusively by the more wealthy class
sunes low-priccd French wines, is made TO nay so
or 100 per cent. on their value, the wealthy man pays
only % or 30 per ct. on the value of the high pric
ell Wines which gratiiics his taste for luxurious in
diligence. The same remark is applicable to tea.
coffee, sugar, and indeed almost every article at
present sub Jet TO specific duty. The other ground
of preference for al vaorem over specific duties is
the perpetual fuctuaion in the price of articles of
the same denomination and quality. f; i'm the
price of an article will increase the of taxation,
contrary the intention of the Legislature. There
is thus silent legislation in the course of events and
the revolutions of trade, by which we have seen the
enactmens of Congress so entirely changed that n
duty has sweed up To- 100 per cent, which was on
ly % per cent. when originally imposed.
1t remains for the Committee to state the reasons
which have induced them to provide, that the same
of duties shall be levied all imported mer-
chandzc with certain specified exceptions Az
equality is universally recognized as the filndamen-
tai principle of just taxation, uniformity in the du-
ties imposed is the most obvious rule by which thai
principle can bc preserved from violation. The
Constitution provides, that call impost and excise
duties shall he uniform throughout the u. States, y
for the obvious purpose of preventing unequal fax
alton. The spirit of this clause would undoubtedly
require that the same rate of duty should he laid
upon the same description of productions, however
made or acquired, provided they he consumed i'll
the United States. If product of domestic indus
try, converted into foreign manufacture, is sub
jected to certain duty, good reason can bc as
signed why Il similar domestic manufacture should
not be subjected to the same rate OF duty. These
respective manufacturers though acquired by diilc-
rent processes arc equally the productions of do
mcstlc industry and, tn impose tax upon one, be-
cause it is Obtained 10y the Intervention of foreign
exchange, and exempt the other because IL is
manufactured in the United States is in no respect
less unequal and unjust, than it would be levy an
excise duty upon domestic manufacture when
made by imported machinery, and exempt the very
game sort Of manufacture when made by dofvcstic
machinery The difference would be merely formal:
and the principle of equality would be as cilectua-
ly violated, and the rule Of uniformity as ciicctolly
cvaded, iu the one as the other.
In fact, the most moderate revenue duty imposed
upon imported manufactures, while similar articles
of domestic manufacture entirely exempted, is
discriminating tax upon tie productions Of the ex
porting States while the very same productions %
the manufacturing States, made hy labor of a diff:
fcrcnt kind, pays no tax at all. Ii these views be
not utterly erroneous, proper regard for the prn-
cple of equal taxation would require that imported
manufactures, which come in competition with
similar domestic munui0cturcs, should bc admitted