The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-10-10
LETTER FROM HON. GEORGE MoDUFFIE.

LETTER FROM HON. GEORGE MoDUFFIE
From the Charleston Mercury.
Ma Epuron. have seen with some apprehension
the remarks of your Washington correspondent in
regard TO the probable course Of the administration
in fulfilling their pledge to reduce the tariff to
revenue standard. ,a
To relieve myself from the fears excited by those
remarks, addressed letter to Gen. McDufie,
who knew had great personal confidence in Pres-
dent Polk to ascertain his opinion on the subject;
and received in answer, the enclosed communication
which is very satisfactory to me, and think VIII
be to the public.
If you concur in this opinion, l hope you will
give it, place in your paper
CHERRY HILL, Sept. 81, l645.
MY DEAR SIR: You ask me whether, in my
opinion, ait be possible that the conjecures Of the
Washington correspondent OF the Charleston Mer-
curry can be true in relation TO the probable
of the administration of Mr. Polk in the adjustment
of the tariff - and whether ssuch would not
be a palpabe violation of the pledge to reduce the
duties upon foreign imports to the revenue standard"
In answer to these inquiries, state, in the first
place, my confident belief that these conjectures
cannot be true; and, in the second place. that the
course they ascribe to the administration ro,d be
ga palpable violation of the pledge to reduce the
duties upon foreign imports to the revenue stand
ard and of all the pledges Of the party by which
Mr.. Polk was elected.
A brief exposition of the true principles of a rev.
enue tariff, and reference to Mr. Folks inaugural
address, will be sufficient, think, to Danish your
apprehensions. II is obvious to remark that rev.
enue tariff is the louest rate of duty upon epery for
egn import that will raise the required amount Of
revenue. The smallest addition to that rate upon
any article with view to increase the price OF
its domestic rival, is "plainy and intentionaly"a
protective, as contradistinguished from revenue
duty. But If the additional duty not only enhances
the price of both the foreign and domestic article,
but diminishes the revenue, il would be the most
barefaced mockery--the most impudent and hypo-
critical disguise by which a mercenary and merci-
less oppression ever attempted to conceal its de-
formity, to call this revenue duty. Now is only
necessary to apply these plain, If not sefevident
propositions to the articles which It's the supposed
Intention of the administration to favor and protect
by exempting them from the general rule of reduc-
ton. Take, for example, the two leading articles
of sugar and iron. Next to salt, these are articles
of the most general consumption by all classes of
people.
In great financial and economical reform, re-
ducing the duties upon foreign imports to general
average of 20 per cent, upon what principle of JUS
tice, equity, or sound polcy-upon what shadow
Of constitutional power, can rate of duty be inn
posed upon these articles, higher than the general
rate necessary for revenue, at the time adding
to the public burdens, and diminishing the public
revenues Is it because sugar and iron are produced
by a few wealthy sugar-planters and iron. masters,
not equal in number TO one in hundred thousand
of those who the articles, and pay from the
pockets of mediocrity and poverty the contribu-
lions extorted by free government-and let me not
say, democratic administration-to add to the for
tunes of a moneyed oligarchyl Can it be believed,
that Mr.. Polk, bound by the united ties Of interest
and duty TO sustain the great principles of free trade
and unshacked industry, which he has SO ably sup
ported through long of public service, will
now, when elected to the highest station to which
ambition or patriotism aspire, betray his polit-
cal principles, and sacrifice those popular masses,
by whose voluntary and unsolicited suffrages he
was raised to power' 81 trust not the tale" In
his inaugural address he very distinctly lays down
the doctrine, that revenue is the object of all duties
upon imports and protection the incident.
Nothing can be more plain. If protection, to par
fcular classes at the expense Of all otsrs results from
a revenue duty-as it does from all revenue duties
it is an unavoidable incident, not to be desired but
regretted 1t is impossible to separate the protec
fion given to the sugar-panter, for example, by
even revenue duty Of 90 per cent, from the two
fold burden imposed upon everybody else, not only
by raising to the consumers the price of imported
gar which yields revenue equal to the burden, but
he price Of domestic sugar, which imposes an equal
burden and yields no revenue. 1t is this last result,
which uniustly transfers the money Of the many to
me pockets of the few, which constitutes the Incl
dental protection of revenue dutya result which,
so far from being desirable to the people at large,
can only be regarded as a public evil unavoidably
resulting from an unequal system of taxation.
Now, let us suppose the duties upon all foreign
imports, including sugar and iron, reduced to rev.
standard of 90 per cent; and take up the case
Of the sugar-plsnters and ronmasters at this point
What ground would they have to complain of such
adjustment ofthe duties upon imports? Could they
pretend that any of these duties imposed burden
upon them, not equally imposed upon the body Of the
people? The whole Of these duties would operate pre-
cisely upon them as upon others, with the exoep-
ton of the duties upon sugar and iron; and these,
while they would operate as taxes upon all the
rest of the people, would operate as bounties to
them, equal to 20 per cent upon the whole amount
of sugar and iron they produced for sale. Sup
pose, for example, sugar-planter of Louisiana
produces sugar annually TO the amount of fifty
thousand dollars--probaby fair average; and
an ron-master of Pennsylvania, iron to the
same amount The amount of other imported and
protected articles consumed by each, certainly
would not exceed ten thousand dollars. Thus
under arevenue-tarin, these injured citizens would
have to pay 90 per cent on $4,000 (equal to $4,000
10 the government and to their confederate monop-
olists, and would only receive 20 per cent. on
$4,000 (equal to 100000 from the great body of
the people! Their ground Of complaint, then,
against the levelling equality of revenue-tarif,
would be, that they received under it only five times
ms much in bounties as they paid in taxes and
bounties united And what, under these circum-
stances do they modesty demand of the federal
government and of free-trade democratic admins
tration Simply that the bounty of 90 per cent re-
sulting from revenue-duty, be raised to so by a
protecting-duty; swelling their clear and real in
come derived from the system of federal taxation
from eight to twenty-threc thousand dollars! This
plain statement literally exhibits the character not
only Of the protective duties upon sugar and iron,
but of the whole system of protective monopoly;
and am sure no honest patriot can think Of the
unjust, iniquitous, and audacious demand made by
those bloated and hearess plunderers that the adj
mlnistraton should sacrifice their principles and the
vital interests of the people, secure their ale
glance, for the support Of the followers and victims
whom they at the same time deceive and plumber,
without feeling his blood boil in his VEINS with the
warmest Indignation.
Taking more comprehensive view of the sub
ject il may be stated fact, that the greater part
Of the revenue from imports is derived from duties
the class of protected principally sugar,
iron, and iron manufactures, cotton manufactures,
and woollen manufactures. Now, oil these interests
united together in plundering confederacy,
upon the principle that each may rob the other,
that all may rob the community at large. As have