Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-04-16
FOR THE Enquirer.
THE TARIFF
Errors Of Uhig Statistirs Erposed

In our Report to The Democratic Association, we
corrected The mistaken data assumed, and replied
me erroneous deductions made from them, in arti-
Gle on the Tariff, published in the Richmond Wing,
under the imposing caption Of an "lnportant Docu
ment sustained apparently by the sanction q!
raj OF our most respectable merchants. The state
m That article purported 10 be based entirely upon
'Jaets We showed, that the first and most material
Jdet stated 10 this "importaht document, namely
that, I'm the year l5i The Tariff, under the Compro
mise Act ranged at the rsry lomesi rates Of duty
was erroneous. UP TO The 3lst December, 1871 the
high duties imposed by the act of 1892, had been
duced by The Compromis, Act, only fourtenhs Of the
excess above 20 per centum- reduction so sma rs
scarcely 10 affect the character Of the duties at all
the great reductions, under the Compromise act did
not take effect until January lst and July Let 1912
the last reduction having its operation (instead OF,
stated by US IN our Report, not being allowed TO 90
TO oPerution) from the lst Of July 10 the lat Of Sep
lember OF that year The Duties in force in 1871 were,
IN truth, h'sh duties; as high general the duties
IN force IN SAB, and we believe, some OF the artI.
cl-s selected for comparison, higher. For the
TACT, that They were generally high, we refer
10 the Repor, of the Wing Committee of Mannfac-
tnres, made TO the House OF Representatives, March
III, lo42-( Report No. 16l p. o. It's there stated, that
'as general principle, the duty the articles subject
snch determinations is made al The rate il mas IN 1910
after The deduction of lour-tenhs of the excess over
~ per cent under the net of March =, 1888 The
duties were the same in Al and 40, and i, is here sta
ted, that the duties proposed 1912, and in forca
were the same generally in 1S40. The sp.ices in
l4Sl gwen in the tables embodied in this
document, and stated 10 be "iOW duiy" prices, were
in "Jad high duty prices, we'll The prices gwen
in lS43, in the same tables il then but compari.
of prices ut different periods under the operation
different Tariff acts is true. but which acts The pe
RODS selec,ede years 1911 and lS43-impcsed gene.
rally very ay the Of dutv and we ha
stated, upon some oil the selected articles high
er rate, we believe, in the first period than in The
cond. 1t was, in truth, but comparison of prices
under duties equally high nearly SO; instead of be-
ing "hai ptaporfcd 10 be, comparison of prices
der o'r duties with those under high duties II will
be admitted that no Just differences can be drawn in
regard 10 the relative effect OF i0 and hgh duties up
on prices, byu comparison of prices at different times
under duties equally HIGH or nearly so Upon this
false '.tact, that duties o,o in lSil, depended
every deduction this sub ject which could be made
from the labored statistics furnished in this lmportan
Document" This lnisslatement being corrected, the
"lmportant Document was at once converted into n
very unimporiant humbug Erroneous in the very 6;s
sentence, II was great degree erroneous through
out We are wiling TO believe that this misstueme nj
was the result of nadverence, the part of those
who made it, 1t is kaown to have been mis-
siatemen,a mistake, ii you please OF n most material
'Jart.' Our correction of it has not been denied -
The conclusion from has not been met and cannot be
retned. And yet, far as we are informed, The mis-
statement has not been corrected 10 this day On the
contrary, the is still published to the world, thai
duties were materially lower in l5il than in lSi3.
We mad been selected, Committee, by one OF
the Democratic Associations IN this City, to examine
and reply to the "lmportant Document, published in
the Wing. We attempted TO correct its m'sststements
expose its falllcies, and think reued its
illusions. But the Wing Central Committee abandon
ing the useless statistics embodied in the "lmportan,
Document" and the statements which composed it,
now present to us a and different of long tables
equally fnllacious in their character, preceded by
unfuunded.
one unenable position, they have taken up another no
port TO give the prices of various articles of manuac
lures "from January lst, 1884, TO January LIST. 1912
and ffom January ls, 1913, TO January lst, le4i -
that Isl they pnrport to give The prices for the
Of the years 1871 aud 1913 They do not nov state
that the duties upon these articles materially low
in Al than they were in 43. They would not ven
turs again on such q statement But they do no,
cay whether there any difference not IN the
duties these articles in Al and in IS Leaving
the reader therefore, 10 suppose, that comparison of
prices is made under ioW duties with those under
heh Let that fart be stated, and the array of
statistics presented by them, becomes at power.
less for why compare prices in I'll with those in AZ,
TO show the reiive effects of low and high dn,es, il
the duties in the first year were as high, or higher
than those in the last unlesa, the duties being
rather higher in al upsn some articles, the Pfces
OF which also rather higher, they desired to
show the truth of our proposition, as it would seem
they have unwittrngly done by their own tables We
annex hereto table of few Of their selected articles,
containing their prices, and adding the duties on
those articles in al and 43