The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-18
TARIFF COMPROMISE.

| The protectonists insist, that there should be
compromise on the subject Of the tariff One party
among US claims, that the people should be taxed
for the sake Of building up particular branches OF
industry. Another party procaims taxation with
such object to be unjust in itself and unknown 10
our constitution, and asserts that taxes should be
aid honestly and bona fds with the intention to
raise a revenue.
Tins being the state of opinion among us, we in
sst that the proposed tariff bill is compromise, and
liberal compromise, offered by the friends Of free
trade to the friends Of protection.
This bill assumes I'm the first place that the gov
eminent is to be sustained by taxes laid exclusively
on Imports No tax at all is laid directly any arr
tieIe of American manufacture. On the contrary,
under the present BILL every such article is in fact
protected by tax on its foreign competitor.
Here is plainly element of compromise in favor
Of the protectionsts.
But in the second place: In the wide range of
the bill, from per cent to 100 per cent. taxation,
almost every discrimination is directly and cogeny
IN favor Of American manufactures, tariff upon
imports being aiisays in far protection to home
manufactures, even If il be a horizontal tariff
One would say this was very fair compromise
especially where the parties fail to agree upon
the fundamental principles, constitutional and eco
nomical, on which the compromise is based
Yet this tax bill, is denounced on the ground
that compromise is wanted by the friends of pro-
teetion .. ..
This is the burden of Mr. webster's charge
against the bill He said, two or three days ago:
''Mr, President it cannot and ought not to be con-
cealed that there has been and there ia in all parts of
the country, strong desire that this tariff subject
should DC settled upon some permanent principle or
means justice that shall not be agitaled as often
as nsto election occurs. bslieUe that honorable and
honest men Of all parties, epsrohere iuish this 10 be the
case. may say there have been expectations enter
tanned by others as well as myself by leading gen.
temen belonging TO the ranks of the majority here
who are endeayoring to deal with this subject in
statesmanke manner, toho desire 10 modify and accom-
Dodats This great subject branch Of legislation SO
as TO establish Il upon such grounds il can stand
| upon with advantage to the country"
Mr.. Evans followed up this declaration with
some remarks which go to show what kind Of COM
promise the friends Of protection demand. Mr.. Ev-
ans said:
"He concurred fully in the opinion expressed this
morning by the honorable senator from Massachu-
setts that The biz radically icrOng "a principle;
that was so defective to render il almost i'm
possible to build anything upon it. If it passed at
ALL therefore, he supposed 1t would pass in its pres
ent shape. He would go for no attempts to patch
up that which he thought could not be patched bene-
hclay for the interests Of the country. The bill
would have to take entirely nec shape before he
could give it his support"
Here we have the nature of the compromise
sought for, very clearly stated. 1t must consist in
ian entire change" of the present bill II must be
the introduction of a wholly "new principle" into
the measure And it is limited broadly enough that
| the principle introduced must be the principle of
specific duties, in place of ad valorem.
Give the protectionists duty which shall have
no reference whatever to the value Of the article
taxed-which shall tax the cheap article Just as
much the costly one-which shall levy the same
tax on the pound of China silk, which costs three
dollars, on the pound of figured French silk
lace, which costs thirty dollars-which lays this
absurd tax in such a manner that the consumer of
such article know how much he pays in
the shape Of taxes-which thus opens door to every
conceivable abuse Of taxation, and which, in fact,
gives, in its latest application in the law of 1912,
more than ono tremendous instance of such abuse
give the protectionists such law as this would be,
and then, especially if you will sprinkle over it
ninimums with liberal hand, they will vouchsafe
to accept it as very satisfactory compromise! But
until bill is framed, it is too bad in their view
| to be even susceptible of amendment. To attempt
to improve such thing as the present bill,
is labor thrown away. And the reason urged
| against such a hopeless attempt is, forsooth,
neither more nor less than this: that the pres
ent bill, in taxing article, really insists upon
paying some regard to its value! Now, the statis-
tics and the ethics of taxation old-very old
as old government itself. And we venture to say
that never before the present year, and we believe
may say the present discussion, has this objec.
ton been urged against tax law-that it did pay
regard to the pae Of the property it taxed and did
endeavor to establish some ineligible proportion
between that value and the amount of the tax Yet
this-just this and nothing else-is the objection
now made against the ,ohole principle of ad valorem
duties. And, ludicrously enough, this objection
puts itself forward with the phrase, and if in the
spirit, of compromise between protection aud free
trade.