Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-07-19
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
THE TARIFF QUESTION.

4
upon the Tariff question; the question, that is to
saw, whether our code of duties on importations
ought TO be framed upon what is called a revenue
basis or upon which looks also to protection for
domestic manufactures
In this discussion between the opposing parties
in Tennessee, the question is narrowed down into
a very small compass. Both parties admit the ne
cessity that revenue must be raised, and both,
believe, unite in preferring the indirect mode of
raising that revenue to the direct one that is, by
levying duties imports, rather than by taxation
of lands or personal property There nusf, there
fore, be Tariff Of some kind: So say both
parties.
Neither party advocates the raising more revenue
than is necessary, but both wish enough TO be
raised. We thus advance another step-the Tariff
must produce sufficient revenue.
The next question is, upon what descriptions Of
imports must the tariff duties be levied! The COM
nonsense answer evidently is, upon those articles
the introduction of which interferes the most with
our own productions the consumption of which is
most generally and equally dihused among the peo-
pie and the payment Of the duties upon which will
be most equally borne, and least oppressvely felt,
by the people of every section. We therefore now
take third step, and that is, the Tariff must be as
equal possible IN lis operations upon euery sec
zion Of he cosaatyys and upon euery class of The
community.
eifc nave now got hold OF the sinh AL aSs.il9
that there must be tariff; all agree as TO It's pro-
per object and legitimate extent; all are Of the
opinion as to the principles upon which it ought to
be established Next let US inquire, how far does
our present tariff promote the object all seek Is it
commensurate with or does it fall short of or does
it exceed that object! Is it established upon the
principles which all admit to be correct!
First, then, is present tariff revenue tariff
1t certainlyis nothing else; for all the money which
1t raises is applied to revenue purposes. Does it
raise enough or more than is necessary! Ii raised
enough last year; for after defraying all expenses,
there remained a balance in the Treasury Did it
raise more than enough Now, before we can an
swer this, must decide what is enough. This
is point upon which the opponents to the present
tariff not agreed. Neither the editor of the gov
eminent paper in this city, who goes for the reve-
nue. standard" nor the editor of the Nashville
Union, who advocates revenue tariff" gives us
the least mixing of their meaning. But they both
say that the present tariff must be reduced. To what
1t is to be reduced we not informed. Let us
strive to answer the question for ourselves as to
what is revenue tariff, and what is the proper
amount il should raise. We answer the first por-
ton OF the nerogatory by saying that the existing
tariff IS TO all ntents and purposes, revenue tariff
seeing that all It's proceeds are applied revenue
purposes, and TO none other and we contend that
If, in levyng the duties from which those proceeds
arise, has been taken so to apportion them that
they shall yield not only an incidental, but an in
tended protection to domestic manufactures such
discrimination does not in any way affect the char
acter of the tariff, its just and proper title If
more money were raised than was wanted for, or
was applied to, revenue purposes, and the fair le-
gay authorized, and legitimate purposes of the ma
lion, then, so far such application went, it would
cease TO be reUenue tariff.
The mode in which the duties are levied, and the
effects produced in the way of protection, we viii
hereafter consider. We call upon the opponents of
the tariff to give their definition Of revenue ia
riff And, next, call upon them to state what is
the amount which the tariff should produce so as TO
make il adequate TO the wants and the purposes of
the nation. We ask them to build up, and not pull
down. We ask them to state the number of mil
lions Of dollars requisite to meet such annual expen
ditures of the Government as may be necessary and
prudential during peace and to place in the best
possible attitude for defending their affairs, their
hearths, and their Institutions in case of unavoid-
able war;
Let the honorable Secretaries who are stated by
the official journal to have struck blow for the
revenue limits and the revenue standard" tell us
what those limits and that standard are and then
we shall have something TO argue about. Let them
tell us what the legitimate objects to which
revenue reduced to their limits and their stand
ard ought to be applied and also tell us what
amount of money viii annually be wanted to meet
those objects. In the absence of such information
declare opinion to be that the present tariff
does not and toiH not yield more than enough for
the purposes of the nation in revenue point of
view, and that we are not quite free from appre-
hension that it may prove inadequate to that pur-
pose.
We now, therefore, take this ground, and shall,
IN the absence OF all proof to the contrary, abide by
and maintain 1t: that tariff is necessary to supply
the means OF meeting the national expenditure, and
that the present tariff does moi more Than meet that
expenditure; that is, average of years, it will
not leave any surplus above the legitimate and ne
cessary expenses OF the country and therefore Thai
al Is TO all intents and purposes reuenue tariff |;
and such one as the President, the Secretaries,
and their organs (the Washington and the Nashville
Unlons) will find themselves obliged to advocate
and support
The present tariff is charged with being too un-
equal in itself; too oppressive upon some interests.
too partial 10 others-too favorable the rich, zoo
burdensonle TO the poorer classes Of the commune
y These charges of inequality, oppression, and
partality are too general TO be replied TO. We ask
Tor facts, figures, proof. As general charge we
deny II, and assert that the tariff is as uniform in
ITS operation and as free from oppression and par
ilay IN IT'S general character as human legislation
can well devise. As to the charge that it is u too
favorable TO the rich and too burdensome TO the
poorer classes OF the community" we repel it with
contempt, because il has been so often answered be-
fore, and has been completely settled by all who
have attended to the question, that il will be now
made only by those who do not know what thew
are talking about or who, depending upon the ignor-