Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-08-02
MORE OF THE TARIFF QUESTION

,ltimo under the title OF I. The Tariff Question,
has had the good fortune to be read by the Editors
az two contemporary journals in the city Of Bos-
ton, one of which Qhe .Aaas) pronounces tito be |"
plain, clear, sensible and rrefuable article in ia
vor Of the existing tariff adding that !" the
National lntellgencer may well defy our political
opponents TO gansay the statements contained in
Ibis article j" whilst on the contrarysthe other
(the Morning Pos0 calls it g deceptive" land says
tits false, fimsy, sophistical," and we doat know
what besides. We might well be content to let
these two opinions stand in opposition 70 each
Other and take the balance which, when the author
yor me conflicting parties is considered, would be
found to our credit were not this balance someWhaf
diminished by the Administration paper in this city
having thrown its weight into the scale of its Bos-
ton associate, in transferring its commentary into
the columns Of the government paper Of Saturday
last. The Administration having thus taken the
field on the side Of our Boston antagonist, we will
answer them jointly
What, then, say our opponents They admit
IN terms, our two first propositions FIRST that there
must De a Tariff Of some kind and, secondly,
that u must produce sufficient revenue. Our
third proposition was, that The Tariff must be as
equal as possible IN its operation upon eUery sec
lion Of the country and upon every class Of the
community. This proposition the Post does not
quote fairly, but represents us as saying that the
Tariff should operate equally upon every section OF
the country and upon every class Of The commu-
Nifty" These, as the reader will perceive, are
not our words, and the discrepancy, if not inten-
tional, is yet an important one. Yet the inference
deduced from even the garbled quotation is certain
M, to use the select phraseology Of the Post most
Use, fmsy, and sophistcal." Does the equal
peration of the Tariff imply, as the Post repre-
ssnts, that the poor is to pay as much as the
rich man. to the revenue of the country, or that
IN the language of that paper, Mr. Aston is to con-
tribute no more to the support of the Government
taan his boot-black? If the Tariff had required
that all men were to pay SO many dollars each TO
the revenue-had it been in fact capitation tax
hen would our sagacious and veracious opponents
have some ground to stand upon. But we have not
SO read the Tariff nor have we said any thing Of
the kind respecting it. If this mere ad captandtm
argument of the Post would not escape contradic-
ton and ridiculc II delivered from stump in the
most benighted region of Locofocoism, what plen-
published at the capital of New England, in the
midst Of the most enlightened Tor at least the most
knowingly community in our country
In our article to which we have already referred,
we said that the Tariff duties upon imports
should be levied upon those articles the introduc-
ton of which interferes the most with our own
productions, the consumption of which is most
generally and equally diffused among the people,
and the payment of the duties upon which will be
most equally borne and least oppressively felt by
the people of every section" Now, the Posi-
represents us as saying that the duties should be
slevied exclusively upon articles the consumption
: of which is most generally and EQUALLY difused
among the people" and, emitting all the remain
der of the paragraph, shamefully disorts and mis-
represents our language. If it is asking too much
of our opponents to require them to reason cor
rectly from the premises which they adopt, we
surely have right to insist that they shall quote us
honestly, if they quote US at all.
The " Post" says if many Of the rates (of du-
w were reduced one-half, greater revenue would
lie the result, from the additional quantities which
would be imported" We challenge the Post to
designate these many" articles upon which it pro-
poses TO reduce the rates 0ne-haf.
The Post" says further that because " fannels
Of all sorts are taxed fourteen cents the square
yard, the poor are taxed the same sum on yard
of the flannel as the rich are on yard Of
the finest" We will give the Post information
on one point and then we will require it from him
upon two, to enlghten our excusabe ignorance y
The entire number of yards of flannel of all kinds
imported last year 93,s35, and the duty there
on at fourteen cents the square yard was sI3,136 !;
and the quantity of bazes Of all kinds imported was
125,O4O yards, and the duty thereon &l7,5O5.
Now, we ask, what proportion Of these flannels and
baizes was of the "coorsest description" as spoken
of by the Post, and used by the poor; and we ask
what was the price of the "coarsest Hannels" as
furnished TO the poor before 1912, and what the
price now! We believe that but little if any of the
coarser aannels are imported, and we believe further
that such aannes and baizes as are used by the
lower classes Of the people are cheaper nop than
they were in 1912. So much for the injurious
effects Of the Tariff upon The poor in the article Of
flannel.
again" says the Post, !" all manufactures Of
silk, whether of the poorest coarsest kind or Of
the richest and most costly kind, worn only by the
rich, pay equally $3.50 the pound'' We believe
that the distinction in silk goods is thick and thin
and not coarse and fine that the highest priced
silks are the thickest that, of course thew weigh
the most per yard, and pay the most duty and that