Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-06-28

1882, do S,l4l do l7,45S
1895 1895 % $3.50 g $50 % 1859 s.
1885, do 100 do 2O5I9
1889, do l2,l55 do 22,ls7
Little Delaware runs well in the race of ncon-
sistency with New Jersey.
Under the head of Maryland, we find
In 1922, the duties 3l3 the expenses s45 $3.50
1912, do 5sIlls do lo7,o5l
In the District of Columbia
In 1922, the duties sllo, lO7, the expenses 9s2
i ,sss do do 1921 81 ead do 4 4sss do
We cannot imagine why, when the duties have,
during the twenty years, diminished seven-eighths,
the expenses should have remained nearly the same
in absolute amount, and increased seUen fold in
their rate per cent. on the amount received.
In Virginia.
In 1922, the duties $685. 1885, the expenses s27 3O9
1912, do loo,sss do $3.50 1879
The erpenses regularly Increasing as the duties
diminished.
In North Carolina the following proportions are
In 1922 the duties were slso s9 the expenses s7,sls
1912, do SSH do do 1901 1901
This diminution between the expenses Of 1892
and 1912 is very nearly in proportion to the dimi-
mutton of duties, and is the only case yet found of
that reasonable position.
South Carolina stands
In 1922 the duties ss00294, the expenses s44
1912, do 306, 323 do 44,us
Being, so far as these two years are concerned, a
diminution of fUe-eighths of the amount of duties,
and payment of the same amount of expenses
for the remaining three-eighths. Why it is SO we
have no means of deciding.
In Georgia
In 1922, the duties ser, 2s3 the expenses $751; III
1882 do l26,479 do 27,a26
1912 do so924 do 80, COS
Here $4,000, in 1912, costs more than nearly
s2sO,OO0 did in 1922.
Alabama, however, looks little cheering:
In 1922, the duties S2s774, the expenses SIS
1882 do do s soasS do lo'Ssl
We had almost began to fear that it was fixed
principle for diminution OF duties to cause an in
crease of expenses, and had almost driven our
selves into Irishism by wondering, when the
duties had fallen to nothing, how much the expenses
OF collecting them would be; but Alabama has re-
moved our dilemma by showing that $3s, TIA cost
less collecting than S57 1856, and this latter sum
less than s69,Osl.
But Louisiana takes her place in the former
category
In 1922, the duties $685. o9O the expenses $751;
1897, do l,6bO,79l do 81, 500
1912, do s33,0l2 do 3d. 1855
Here the increased per cent. expenses of the last
ten years are considerably more than doubled.
We will close this examination with Florida !;
where
In 1922, the duties S9,05I, the expenses s57s4
1892, do 5s,us do 1881
1872 do 1885 do 25,977
Here the disproportion is not SO great as in some
other States, but sufficiently large, if it had been
stated alone, to have excited attention and required
explanation.
We deduce the following conclusions from the
statements given in this document. There was
collected
In 1910, SIC $780, 1885, for 1896 $685. or 81 per cent
In 1920, l6,H7,s6s, T7,753 464 do
In 1880, 2s,432,24s l,O47,s56 36s do
In 1910, l5,2l4,224, l,523,o36 1901 do
In 1871, 19,97s,4S5, l,469,Os9 735 do
In 1912, l6,7O4,003, 1,476,775 ss4 do
And from 1871 to S43 the whole amount collected was
s945, 754,25 which cost $40 ABS 500 collecting or 427
per cent
We have thus gone through the singular contepts
of this singular document me uouch for nothing
-, IL. II n