Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1844-03-14
p OLITIC A T.
THE TARIFF.
SPEECH OF Mr.. McDUFFIE,
OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

SPEECH OF MR.. McDUFFIE,
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
! In the Senate. January 10, 1914. On the re.
| solution of the Committee on finance to
| postpone indefinitely the bill introduced by
Is him for the reduction of the present Tariff
to the standard of the Compromise act.
| Now sir, having adverted to the prom
inent features of the existing Tariff, |
propose to submit to the consideration of
the Senate some general views with re-
gard to the true character and extent Of
the revenue powers of this Government;
and it is not only practca! question of
expedlency. but practical question OF
constitutional power, addressing itself to
the conscience aud judgement Of every
member of this body. What, then, is
the extent anG the limitation OF the pow
er conferred by that clause which author
ICES Congress to rails revenue by the i'm
position Of duties? A bill is reported
| from the Committee on Finance, and the
title is "a bill to provide revenue for the
support Of the Government To ascer-
tain whether, the bill itself conforms to the
title, ask what is the line which dstin-
guishes revenue from protective duties?
Is it practicable to draw such a line of
discrimination with sufficient distinctness
to render it of any substantial utility?-
think it is, sir; and shall now endeav-
or TO present to the Senate a rule on this
subject, which | think every member
will admit to be tue in the abstract,
whatever may be the difficulty in its
practical operation. j..
hold, then, MIR. President, that IN
der the power of imposing duties to raise
revenue, there is this Limitation imposed
not only by the Constitution. but by eve
~ consideration of sound policy; and if
it implies to one article imported, it e.
duaIly applies 10 every other. The rule
is this: revenue duty must be the low
est possible duty that will yield the lar
gest, or the required amount Ufreveuuc.
repsat the proposition, sir, (and ask
the attention of the Senate to it.) that a
revenue duty should be the lowest pos
sibIe rate Of imposition that would yield
revenue required to support the Govern
ment. will illustrate this view. Ev-
cry Senator knows that any duty, how
ever small, is to a certain extent, pro-
hibitory duty. If you lay duty OF 10
per cent, il excludes very considerable
amount of imports. If YOU lay a duty OF
/ 90 per cent. it excludes still more; and
so on, progressively, till you reach the
point of total prohibition. Now Sir,
will suppose, Gas believe the truth to
be, J that duty Of 90 per cent. on cot
ton goods will yield as much revenue as
any higher duty. To be more SPECIFIC,
will assume that, under revenue duty
of 90 per cent. on foreign manufactured
cottons, the amount OF 90 millions would
be imported into the United States, on
which duty of 90 per cent. would yield
revenue TO the Government of four
millions of dollars; and that every Sena-
tor should be satisfied that duty OF &C
per cent. would yield precisely the same
amount of revenue, and no more, prohib'
ting half the imports that would come
in i the duty were only 90 per cent.
Now | ask the Senate which of these
is the true revenue duty-that OF 90 pei
centum, yielding four millions OF reve
nue., or that of 40 per cent. yielding the
same amount of revenue, and imposing
double the amount Of burdens on the PEG
pleP 1t seems impossible to me that any
human mind can hesitate between tht
two duties. 1t is selt-evident,, OF
the supposed hypothesis that 20 o
the 40 per cent. duty could be i'm
nosed with no other effect, than to lew
a contribution of 90 per cent. on thu
mass of the people, to supply protcc
tive bounty of 90 per Cent. on the manu-
features.
But have conceded too much in The
above hypothesis; for every practlca
N merchant will sustain the assertion, tha
90 per cent. will yield more revenue
than 40. But what do you say, sir, t,
that immense and incaculable amour
of manufactures consumed by the mid
die and poorer classes of the United
States, upon which the duty is not mere
~ 40, but 20, 80, 100, no, 1870 per cent
Sir. it is worth while to explain, littl'
in detail, the true character OF the Law
which exhibits so fair and yet SO false
front: promising revenue and producn;
prohibition. A large proportion OF tn
nrints and calicoes consumed in the U
p;ted States, and of which every iemal,
of The middle and poorer classes is a con
SINNER. cost in Manchester, from 6 to i
cents per yard; but they are charge.
: with duties of from Is to $50 per cent