Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1843-04-06


mand upon the people of Virginia, to be cole
ed by Federal Marshals, would amount TO Q
sstl2ion three hundred fh0usand doildrs-the SINAI
sum being nearly double the amount of the Sta
tax Arc the people of Virginia able 10 bear d
additional burthen! Would they be willing
do so! Would they not be FESTIVE under th
double machinery of State and Federal tax-gat
erers, following in each others footsteps,-th
last cleaning what the first had left !! That sag,
cious Statesman, John Randolph, Of Roanoke
drew picture. not less graphic and true, tina
I, appalling, Of the effects of system of direct tax
Y alton, which, in addition to intrinsic odiousnes
$ and oppression, would scatter government stipep
diaries over the whole face Of the country, and in
vestthe Federal Executive, by this new and power
fu addition to his already Overgrown patronage
with an almost irresistible influence over public
opinion.
But i, may be said that the Federal Government
IS now supported by taxation as well as the State
Government; and tiiat the only difference s that
Its revenue is drawn from the people by an indi-
rect tax upon consumption, instead of direct tax
upon production. Even if this proposition were
strictly true, this difference would be vital. In
the first place, the payment Of indirect tax is
voluntary, on the part of the contrbuter--and il
generally falls upon those who are able, as well
as willing to bear it--for, so long as the abso-
Lutte necessaries of life are exempt from duties, it
Is not In the compass OF possibility, model Ia
rih Law as we may, that any of our fellow
citizens can be compelled to pay any portion Of
the revenue, against his own inclination. Many
OF them do not pay farthlng; and there thou-
sands, to whom Fortune has doled out its gifts
with niggard hand, whose contributions are SO
small that they are unconscious of their abssrac.
ton even from their ecanty means. Yet such per-
sons could not escape their equal proportion Of
direct tax.-The great bulk Of that small portion
OF the tax which Is paid under tariff law, by our
own citizens, Is drawn from the pockets of tho
weather. classes who can best afford to bear the
burthen, but who, to whatsoever extent they do
SO, assumeit OF their own free will, and paw it.
not only without difficulty, but in blissful ignor-
ance that they pay 1t at all. But, in the second
place, we confidently express the opinion that .
large portion Of the revenue derived by the feder-
al government from duties on imports is paid by
the foreign producer-a duty upon wooens and
cutlery and silks being felt as sensibly at Leeds,
at Sheffield, and at Manchester, as at any point,
however gIoat the consumption of either or ALI Of
those articles, OH this side of the Atlantic. This
assertion might be sustained and illustrated by o
number OF facts and arguments-but it is sbsolute-
iy demonstrated by observation of the effect of
all tho tariff laws that have been enacted, from
1916 to lSl2-showing concusively that the
prices oil dutiaLle commodities have not only not
been enhanced to the consumer TO the amount of
tae duty imposed, but in truth have not been aug
mented at all in many instances, and have been
actually reduced in many others.-This fact is
confirmed by tie tables of prices within any Sc
Ies OF years. and is avouched by the records Of the
Treasury Department., as well as by the experience
and observation of all men. The existing tariff,
which, though imposing more moderate duties on
many OF the principal articles imported even than
tho tariff Of 1884, and far moro moderate than that
of 1928, furnishes daily evidence of this truth
evidence which is palpable to the mind Of every
man who purchases dollars value of the pro-
ductons thus subject TO duty. While, therefore,
direct tax upon lands, negroes. and other proper
~, lisa positive subtraction from every individuals
actual resources,-an Indirect tax, levied upon
foreign capital and labor, is, to great extent.
paid, not by the consumer, but by the producer Of
the articles upon which the duties imposed,
II is conceded, that the principle of indirect taxa
ton, carried too far, may have contrary tendep
cy and hence, the Wing party do not sustain the
policy of prohbitoy dues, OF of duties for troftc-
lion az primary object. The position they as
sumo is, that the tariff system should be adjusted
with an eye primarily 10 revenue but discrinsi-
mating among tie articles upon schich tie duties ara
imposed as 10 afford incidental protection to domes-
TIC industry. II, indeed, we were influenced by
Tetalaory spirit towards foreign nations, which
burthen American productions with exorbitant
taxes We might, in the spirit of MIR. Jefferson's in
junction, be disposed to 'meet high duties with
high duties, and prohibition with Prohibition Bnt
we are willing to disencumber commerce, as far
as may be consistent with a sound and judicious
policy, In reference to all the great interests of the
Union, of those shackles with which the regula.
tlons OF European governments have fettered it.
TO this extent we go---no farther. There NAV be
in the Wing ranks, as there are among their op-
ponents. individuals who would push the princi-
pie of Protection to a dangerous extent but the
great body of the party, and he in whom they re-
cognize their distinguished leader, have long ago
defined their position upon this question, in Lam
guage so precise and definite, that no intelligent
mind can misunderstand it.
1t may be added, that, while some of the most
prominent members of the Democratic party have
openly avowed their hostility to the entire Custom
House system, and have inscribed the ominous
words "Direct Tar" upon their banner, we have
the strongest and most conclusive evidence that
there are many among them, perhaps far tho
greater NUMBER who substantially concur with :
the Wings in the just principle we have here as
sumed, TO vii: II Tariff for Revenue, ,viM Incl
dental PrOiection." Why, then, it may be asked.
did they oppose the Tariff Law enacted at the last
session of Congressl And why are they now SO
clamorous for its repeal? We are reluctant to at.
tribute Improper motives to our opponents; but
we cannot but question their sincerity, in view of
the fact, that the Tariff Of 1912 evies lighter du-
ties on most Of the principal articles than that Of
1884, or that Of 1928, or that of 1899, for one or
more N mlsich many If Themselves theerfuHy pofed
and particularly in view of the additional and
striking fact. that. although they place their hos
ility to the Law Of 1912 the ground that it has
too little reference to revenue, and that il recopni.
yes too broadly the principle of protection, they
voted against duty on Tea and CeGte, which are
non-proiectiue articles--a duty which would have
yielded revenue of aboutfour millions of dollars,
and which, had il been imposed, would have ms
tilted reduction to that extent of the duties on the
protected articles. Opposed to the imposition
OF duties on articles, which, coming into compe-
| tlton with no domestic production, would have