The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-10-15
COMMUNICATIONS.
THE TARIFF.--No. 3.

For tho Union
THE TARIFF--No. g.
The principles and Distinctive differences berssn tar
NJor revenue and one for protection considered.
In my last, in order to enforce moro clearly the
injustice and inequality of the system of raising
revenue for the use of the government, by the i'm.
position Of customs or duties upon foreign imports
particularly when that system was pushed beyond
the real object of raising revenue and became 'pro
tectve" in it's features-I attempted to explain the
difference between tariff tar and direct tar show.
ing that the first was tax upon the cons,inpiion Of
the country, and therefore operated as tax upon
persons-all, whether rich or poor, paying nearly
equal portions Of that taxi and that the latter was
tax upon property of which each person paid in pro.
portion to the amount of property he possessed
also stated the proposition, that, in the present
condition of the country, and in the present state Of
public sentiment on the subject, both OF the great
parties into which the people of this country are d.
vided were in favor of raising tho revenues required
by the general government, by tariff of imPosts
upon foreign importations; and, at the same time,
sndeavored to show that there were two tariff the
cries or systems, one Of which was the repenut
tariff system, advocated by the democratic party; the
other, the protective tariff system, advocated by the
federal or wing party.
In this communication shall endeavor to point
out the principles and the distinctive differences Of
these two antagonist theories or systems. But in
passing, viii seize the occasion to repudiatc one
term, applied by federal editors and orators to the
democratic party, (and sometimes acquiesced in by
the latter;) by the use Of which term, much injury
has been done to the democracy mean the term
"fiss-trade." The democratic party, because they
desre reduction Of the tariff to the revenue STAN
dard, are falsely and perseveringly denomnated h.
tree-irade" party. To be candid, believe some in.
dviduals of the democratic party not only acqui.
esce in the correctness of the term applied to the
advocates of revenue tariff, but themselves denom
mate the democratic the free-trade party. This
term misrepresents their principles No party in
this country advocates the absolute doctrines Of
free-tradethat is, an abolition ofall duties, and
resort to direct taxation Certainly the democratic
party do not nor do any ofits distinguished leaders
including Mr. Calhoun himself, one of the first and
ablest champions of moderate tariff. They pro.
pose to approximate to the principles Of rce-trade
only so far as they can, by an equal and just inn
position Of duties, to extent sufficient to raise
revenue for the necessary wants of the government
administered with strict regard to economy. The
democratic party therefore, is not the free-trade
party, but it is truly the REVENUE TARIFF
PARTY.
Starting upon the conceded proposition that both
parties are in favor of tariff Of some kind, will
now proceed to show the principles and distinctive
differences between revenue and protective tariff
In the present condition Of country, the general
government ought not to exact of the people, for its
ordinary expenditures, more than $50, 000 900 at the
outside. II should not exact so much. Extraor-
binary crcnmstances-such for instance, as have
grown out of the annexation Of Texas-may increase
its expenditures, and compel il to exact more. But
whatever the amount may be, it must with the ex,
ception Of the revenue accrung from the sales of the
public land) be raised by duties upon foreign mpor
tations---in other words, bya tariff
How shall these duties be levied' The demo.
cratic party contends that they should be levied
solely ,oh pie,o to revenue, leaning protection
accidental consequence Of revenue duty The con.
sttution permits duties to be levied for no other
purpose. 1t does not say that Congress- shall have
power s'to lay and collect taxes, duties, mposs, and
excuses to pay the debts and provide for the com.
mon defence and general welfare of the United
States,'' and to protect the manufacturers. They
to be laid and collected only for the benefit of the
corporate body of the United Sates represented by
their government.
Now, it has been found, in the experience Of ma
tons, that If duty be imposed upon article toe
high in proportion to its value, it will have two.fod
efec-viz first, to check the importation Of the article
and, secondly, 10 defeat, or greatly to diminish ths
amount ofrerenue to be derived from it, il the duty
were lower 1t is evident, therefore, that when the
rate of duty is so high to prohibit its introduction
into the country, greatly to diminishit, it defeats
the revenue, which, with more moderate duty
would be derived from it. 1t therefore to bs
a revenue duty, and becomes prohibitive--in other
words, protective"
1t has also been found, in the experience of ma
tons, that there is limit Of duty ,chich ,oiH neither
prevent the importation Of the commodity on ,ohich
is imposed, nor diminish the revenue to be derived from
its importation. This limit may be higher, or lower
according to the nature Of the commodity on which
it is imposed. If the commodity be of small bull
and great value, it will not bear so high a rate o
duty as commodities of greater bulk and lesser val
ue; particularly If the latter have become real OF
fancied necessary Of life. And the reason is OBJ
vious: if too high duty is imposed upon the com
modify ofsmall bulk and great value instead of be
ing entered at the custom-house, it will be SNUG
gled, and thus the government will derive very it'll
or no revenue from it. might instance diamonds
as commodity from which, on account of thei
small bulk and great value, little or no revenu
would be derived, if too high duty were imposed
upon them.
On the contrary iron, sugar, and salt, three Of Thu
prime necessaries of life, and their great bulk il
proportion to their value rendering it almost al
impossibility 10 smuggle them, will bear compare
lively much higher duty. But duty may b.
imposed upon those articles so high as to pro
hibit their importation. The duty, Notwithstanding
IL Il -