Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1845-10-17

the enclosed communication, which is very
satisfactory to me, and think will be to the
public.
If you concur in this opinion, I hope yon
will give it a place in your paper. ~
.eea CHERRY HILL, Sept. 81, l945.
My Dear Sir--You ask me whether, in my |
opinion, sit be possible, that the conjectnres Of
the Washington correspondent of the Charles.
ton Mercury can be true, in relation to the |
probable course of the Administration of Mr..
Polk in the adjustment Of the tariff" and
whether s'such course would not be palpa-
BILE violation Of the pledge to reduce the du-
ties upon foreign imports to the revenu: stan
dard."
In answer to these enquiries, state in the
first place, my confident belief that these con-
lectures cannot be true, and III the second
place, that the course they ascrlbe to the AID.
mnistration Would be ''a palpable violation of
the pledge to reduce the duties upon foreign
imports to the revenue Standard and of all
the pledges of the party by which Mr.. Polk
was elected.
A brief exposition of the true principles of
revenue tariff and reference to Mr.. Folks
Inaugural Address, will be sufficient, think,
to Danish your apprehensions. 1t is obvious
to remark that revenue tariff is the Lowest
rate of duty upon euery foreign import that
will raise the required amount Of revenue
The smallest addition to that rate upon any
| one article with a view to increase the price
Of its domestic rival, is 'plainly and intention.
ally" protective, as contradlstinguished from
a revenue dnty. But, if the additional dnty
not only enhances the price of both the foreign
and domestic article, but dimnishes the reve-
nue., it would be the most barefaced mockery
the mostimpudenta and hypocritical disguise
by which mercenary and merciess oppres-
sion ever attempted to conceal its deformity,
to call this a revenue duty. Now it is only
necessary to apply these plain, if not self-evi-
dent propositions, to the articles which it is
the supposed intention of the Administration
to favor and protect, by exempting them from
the general rule of reduction. Take for exam
pie the :wo leading articles Of sugar and iron.
Next TO salt, these are articles of the most gen.
eral consumption by all classes of people.
In a great financial and economical reform,
reducing the duties upon foreign imports to a
general average of 20 per cent, upon what
principle of justice, equity or sound policy,
can rate Of duty be imposed upon these ar
ticles, higher than the general rate necessary
for REVENGE, at the same time adding to the
public burdens and diminishing the public
revenue Is it because sugar and iron are
produced by few wealthy sugar planters and
iron masters, not equal in number to one in a
hundred thousand of those who consume the
articles and pay from the pockets of mediocre
ty and poverty, the contributions extorted by
a free government-and let me not say-a
Democratic Adnlnistratlon-to add to the for
tunes of monied oigarchy Can it be be.
lieved. that Mr.. Polk, bonnd by the united
ties of interest and duty to sustain the great
principles of free trade and unshackled indus.
try, which he has SO ably supported through
a long course of public service; will now
when elected to the highest station to which
ambition or patriotism can aspire, betray his
political principles and sacrifice those popula
masses, by whose voluntary and unsolicited
suffrages he was raised TO power! 81 trus
not the tale" In his Inaugural Address hi
very distinctly lays down the doctrine tina
revenue is the object of all duties upon i'm
ports, and protection the incident.
Nothing can be more plain. If protection
to particular classes at the erpe,se Of all other
results from revenue duty-as it does from
all revenue duties-&it is an unavoidable incl
dent not to be desired but regretted. 1t is i'm
possible to separate the protection given t
the sugar planter, for example, by even rev
( enue duty of 20 per cent, from the twofol'
hurthen imposed upon every body else; no
only by raising to the consumers the price o
imported sugar which yields revenue equa
to the burden, but the price of domestic sugar
], which imposes an equal burden and yields n
{revenue. 1t is this last result, which unjustl
transfers the money of the many to the pocket
of the few, which constitutes the incidenta! pro
lection of revenue duty-a result whlc
so far from being desirable to the people a
large, can only be regarded as public ev
unavoidably resulting from an unequal systel
OF taxation.
Now let Us suppose the duties upon all to-
eipn imports, including sugar and iron, redl
ced to revenue standard of 30 per cent, an
take IN the case of thesugar planters and iro
.s masters at this point. What ground woul
they have to complain of such an adjnstmei
e. of the duties upon imports Gould they pr
Of tend that any one of these duties imposed
'e burden upon them not equally imposed upo
so the BODY of the people! The whole of thes
OF duties would operate precisely upon them {
W upon others, with the exception OF the duti'
IS upon sugar and iron, and these while the
sh would operate as taxes upon all the rest OF tt
lie people, would operate as bounties to then
equal to 90 per cent. upon the whole anon
of sugar and iron they produced for sale. Su
pose, for example, sugar planter of Louis
=. ana produces sugar annually to the amount
fifty thousand doIars-probably fair ayerag
mp and an iron master of Pennsylvania, iron
the same amount. The amount of other II
ported and protected articles consumed
Of each, certainly would notexceed ten thousar
dollars. Thus under revenue tariff, the
Y, injured citizens would have topay 90 per Ger
on sic, 900, equal to $4,000 to the goyefnme
try and to their confederate monopoiists. Al
= would only receive 90 per cent. on 5000
l. equal to $4,000 from the great body of t
people! Their ground of complaint, the
against the Ievelling equality of reven
tariff, would BE- that they received under