Mobile register and journal., 1845-12-16


 cture, Ihan upon the article made ont Ol ii by The mechanic It discrnlinaes in favor of the man Hlctufer, and agalns tie merchant, by nJnroIs res lrctiuns upon trade and commerce; and against the ship building and navigating interest, by heavy du lies on almost eyey article used in building navi- gatng vessels. h discruiInates m layor nt manu- lsciures, and against exports, which are as truly the product Of American industry as manufactures. It discr,nnuates in favor of the rich, and against the poor by high duties upon nearly all the necessaries of life, and by minimuns and specific dnlIes, ren- derins the tax upon the real value much hlgEer on the cheaper than upon the huer article. Minimums are fictitious value, assumed by law, In- stead of the real value; and the operation of all nin- munis may be illustrated bya single example Thus, by lhe iarH of lS42 duty Yoi 50 per cent. ad Valor em is levied on all manufactures of cotton; but the law further provides hat cotton goods 'not dyed, coored, printed, or ined, exceeding n value twenty cents per square yard, shall be valued at twenty cents per square yard" 1T, then, the real value of tue cheapest cotton goods is but four cents
 square yard it placed by the law the Ialse value of twenty per square yard, and The duty levied on the fictitious vaue-rSising il live times higher on Ihe cheap article consumed by Ihe poor, than up- 1 on the iue article purchased by inc more wealthy | Indeed, by House document No. 306. of the 1st of the 2Sih Congress, this difference, by actual l importation, was 65 per cent between the cheaper and the finer article of the 20 percent. minimum, l3l per cent on the 30-per-cent. minimum, 4St per cent. on the 33-per-cent. minimum, S3 per cent on l II. 75.per-cent. ininlinum This difference IS founded ] on actual importation, and shows average dis GrilnInaton against line poor cotton imports of SI per cent. beyond what the tax would be ii.assessed upon the actti value, The operation o(ihe specific duty presents similar discrimination against the poor and in favor of the rich. Thus, upon salt, ths duty ia not npon the value, but it is eight cents bushed whether the article be or fine-shOw- | ing, by the same document, from actual lmportailon a determination of 64 per cent. against the cheap, and ia favor ol the finer article and ths, 10 great or less extent, Is the effect Oi all specific duties. When we consider that S2 ,992 62l "A of Ihe reven ue last year collected by minimum dhlies, and l $l3,3ll OS5 I6 by specific duties, the dscrimina- against the cheaper ar,Icle must amount, by es- l inmates Iuurded on the same document, to n tax ol S5,l ,l0S l22. exaeied by rin,muins and specific du- lies annually from the poorer classes, by raising
 thus the duties on the chaper article aboVe what they would be fl the duty were assessed upon the actual value. If 1recl taxes made specific they would be iulolernble Thus if an annual tax of thirty dol- I lars was assessed all houses, without respect to their actual value, making the owner Of the humble tenement or cabin pay tax ofhrty dollars, and the owner of the costly mansion tax of but thirty dol
 lars ;eT respective houses ,-it would differ only in degree, hut not in principle, for the same unvary- ing specific duty on cheap as on iGe articles u any discrimination should be made from Il should be the of the specific duly, and oi the minimum | principle, by establishing d maxmnm standard, , above which value the duty the finer articles ,hould te higher, and below which they should be lower the cheaper artitl le The tax upon the ac- iual value is tie most equal, and only be accom- ] pshed by ad-valorein duties As 10 fraudulent in- voices and under ion, these dangers are be lieyed to be arrested eec uay by lhe stringent pro- visions and severe penalty of the l7lh secilun of the tariff 0l lSi2; and ehall the revenue IS col. Ieciad from ad d-,alorem duties.
 Al least wo-thirds of the taxes imposed by the present tariff are paid, into the treasury, but to the protected classes. The revenue from imports
 last year eXceeded La cntyeeven millions of dollars This, in itself, is heavy tax; but ihe whole lax imposed upon the people by ihe present tariff Is not less than cghty.oae millions of dollars--of which twenty seye n millions paid to the government the imports, and hitytour millions to the protected casses, in enhanced prices of similar domestic nr- | tclcs,
 This estimate is based upon the position that the dut, is added the prlce of the import, and also of it's domes lie rival If the import Is enhanced m price by the duy, be the domestic rival; for, be- ing like articles, their price must be the same in the same market. The merchant advances in cash the day ou ihe import and adds the duty, with profit upon , and other charges to tbe price-Mhich must therefore be enhanced 10 that extent unless the for egn producer had first deducted he duty from the price. But this is impossible; for such now is, and long has been, the superabundance Ol capital and active comperion in Europe, that a profit of six 1 per cent in any business is sufficient 10 produce large investments of money n that business; and i 
 the products or such business and the foreign produ deducs that duty from his previous price e must sustain u heavy loss. This loss would also soon | extend beyound tie sales for consumption to eaes merchants of arllces, 10 be re-exported ! by them from ports With drawback of duty l which would bring down their pi,ce throughout the markets of the world. But this the foreign producer cannot afford. The duty, therefore, must be added | to the price, and paid by the consuner-tbe duty constituting as much part of the price, as the cost 1 Of productions
 If it be true that, when duty of forty per cent is imposed by tariff, the foreign producer first de- ducts the duty from the previous price on the sale to our merchant it must be equally true with duty ol hundred per cent, which Is exactly equal to the 1 previous price, and, when deducted, would reduce l the prce nothing.
 The occasional fall in price of some articles after n tariff, is pooof that this the effect of the tariff; because, from improved machinery, dpln- ished prices of the raw material, or other causes, prices may fall even after tariff, but tEey would m such cases have fallen much moe but for the thrill. The t,uest comparison is between the present price of the same aitcle at hon and abroad; and to the extent that the price si twer in the foreign market than in own, the duly if equal 10 that difference. must to that extent enhance the price, and in the sa.ne ratio with the lower duty. The difference in price at home aud abroad is generally about equal l to the difference in the cost production, and pre- sens, in Il series ol years, the suresi measure oi the effect Of ihe duy-the enhancement in the price being equal 10 that dil. auce, If ihe duty be higher than thai difference equal to it, nr If the duty i lower, then the enhancement is equal To the duiy; and |! the article is produced, like cotton, more cheaply here ilIan abroad, the duty IS imperative. l The great argument for the tariff is, that foreign labor being cheaper than our own, the cost ol foreign production, il is said, IS lessened to that tent; and that we must make up this difference by an equivalent duty, and corresponding enhance | ment in price, in own market, both of the foreign article and of it's rival domestic product thus rendering the duty all consumers, for ihe benefit of he protected classes. If the Marshal were sent by federal government to collect direct tax upon the whole people, to be paid 10 ever man ufacturing capaliss 10 enable them to sustain the business, or realise larger profit, 1t would be the same in effect as the protective duty, which, when anal yzed ih s simplest elements ,Fnd reduced to ac- tual results, mere subtraction o SD much money from the people, to increase the revenue ofthe pro tecied classes. Legislation for classes is against the doctrine of equal rghts, and repugnant to the spirit oi our free institutions, and il is atprehend- ed by many, may become hut another form for pri. veged orders, under the name of protection, in- stead of privege-indicated here not by rank or tiIe, but by profits and dividends extracted from the many, by taxes upon them, for the benefit of the few. No oprtjudice is felt by the Secretary of the l Treasury ngaInst manufacturers. His opposl- tion is to the protective system and not 10 classes 1 or individuals. He doubt that manufacturers ae sincerely pers ,aded that the system which is q 5, urce of so much profit 10 them, is benefca alsc l 10 the country.
 He enter tains a contrary opinion, and claims for the opponents of the systcm settled conviction of it's injurious effects. WI ilst due regard to the
 just and equal rights of all classes iorbds dscrim- nation in favor of .he other manuIacurers, by du- ties above tine lowest revenue limit, do dspusitiuu Is felt to discriminate against them by reducing such duties as operate in their favor below tha, stand- I .s l.. L.i.- .I..