New-York daily tribune., 1844-02-13

slVe amount of importation was attended with
embarrassment. and the Senator from New Hamp-
shire, when in the Treasury Department, stated
that these lnportations were the great cause OF
the distress of The country
we can never safely 90 beyond hundred mil
lions OF lmportations, certainly not above q hun
dred and twenty millions. Supposng our capaci-
ty to raise and eyport to increase rapidly it does
not loiiow that we can export IN the same IN
creased proportion. The consumption of our
produce abroad must be regulated by the capacity
OF the people Of foreign countries to buy; and
there is no reason to believe that the condition OF
the people there will so improve as to increase
their consumption
II we had a statement showing the quantity
OF articles imported during the highest and low
est years OF Importation, it would not be found
that there was so much difference in the quantity
as IN the value of the importations. The price of
all imported articles during the year of extrava-
CANT lmpoTtatlons was extravagantly high.
1t is urged that the decline of commerce would
throw our ships and vessels out OF employment !;
but have shown that OF late importatons have
increased, and refer TO a statement of the Sec
retary OF the Treasury to show that the import Of
dutablc articles from 1921 1924 averaged sixty.
four millions Of dollars. Our population has since
increased eighty per cent, and it is not proba-
bic that we snail import less now. Under high
rate of duties afterwards the importations IN
creased When duties averaged lorty-one per
cent. the imports were about seventy five millions
If tea and coffee had remained dutiabie one year
more, the imported dutiabe goods would have been
seventy.seven millions. Notwithstanding the IN
creased demand for consumption, IN the period
from 1883 to 1889, when the rate OF duties was
twenty three per cent, the importatlons average
seventy millions under reduced duties. These
facts show that the Senator's theory that duties
destroy commerce is not well founded
As to the last two years, the theory does not
hold good. The importations i'll 1913 were forty
four mions-a falling off OF 30 per cent in Tree
goods, which could not be referred to the Tarltf.
The cause of the dlminution OF both was the
agitation of the subject of the Tariff, and not the
imposition Of the duty.
Here Mr.. EVANS without concludns way 10 mo-
ton To go executive busG.ss.
After spealiog .hort Executive Session the Senate
adjourned
Mr. ErAss resumed the floor on tie 23d aud continued his
remarks on the subject
Yesterday discussed some of the topics nitro
duced bv the Senator from South Carolina, and
particularly his argument that the Tariff of 1872
was destructive vi tlC htNNiiuS tiiu i'''S'N~
of the country. The Senator made some other
objections TO the act and 10 the policy on which
i; rests. The first Of his objections was that the
act imposed heavy burdens or the country, adding
10 The taxes which the People were obliged to pay
burden for the support of The manufacturers and
thereby operating onerously or all classes. Inc
honorable Senator says that tho ines under t'iS
Tariff average forty per cent. and that we raise
eft ,,,,li,ppr of cnttOp uo0dS
four millions Of dollars which, though burden
heavy enough, does not stop there The ten NH
lions. he VS., meet in the markets forty millions
of our own articles of a similar character, and
adds to the price Of the whole forty millions the
same amount of duty as II the whole had been
imported and that thus an additional burden OF
sixteen millions of dollars, besides the duty, is
imposed on the consumers. Ih!s he says, Is not
for the purposes OF revenue, but II Is county
given to the manufacturers. Hence the great
burden Of which he complains. In addition TO
all, he adds that the price of all the commodities
here is enhanced. The whole OF
the argument rests on the idea that II we add
duty on imported foreign articles, the price OF the
articles will necessarily rise to the extent OF the
increased charges consequent on the duty ana
that they would not only rise themselves, but
factured in the country In the first place, will
saw to this, that all experience is against it, There
is not an instance to be named In which any con-
siderable rise has taken place in the price of any
article upon which a Protective duty was I'M
posed: and generally, as experience has shown,
the price has fallen very considerably.
The Senator does not deny the fact, but he still
insists upon his theory. The theory does not ad-
-. =, - tbipr and therefore he REGARDS
it as unreasonable; and he still insists that II the
duty adds any thing to the cost of the article IN
the market, the price must necessarily rlse II
there were no competition here, and if the foreign
manufacturer always sold his goods for the cost
Of production, transportation, and delivery IN our
market. the theory would be true. But this Is not
the case. Is there no such thing as enormous
nroft on foreign merchandise sold here what
proportion does the cost of production and delivery
here bear to the profits made by manufacturers,
sbioowners. and merchants? A vast amount
has goneinto their hands from the sale the goods
imported into this country. When we rely on
simply of goods from abroad, 1t becomes the N
terest Of the manufacturers to watch our marker,
10 hold back the supplies of goods, and keep up
,r;ces Theytske care that the market shall never
he 81, overslocked as to depress the prices. But,
where we do not rely On foreign manufactures
wholly, competition reduces the price fnces
have declined after the imposition OF increased
duties That IS to say, profits on them nave
ceased. The article OF crockery has been sole
here OF scale of prices established by the manu-
fac.urers in 1911 They have never altered the
scale OF prices, but they sell at great discount
from them Prior to the tariff OF 1912 they sold
at discount of iotty-five per cent. We then
paid duty cf twenty per cent. on the reduced
prlce of fifty-tive, which was eleven dollars on
the hundred The whole cost of the article was
then sixtv.slx per cent, on the scale of prices
Now. what were the effects OF the tariff ol lo42
on the article The manufacturers reduced thcr
scale OF prices FIVE per cent. THIS made the dis
count fifty per cent. The dealers, therefore, lost