The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-09-18

| el0 al "a "a per Il, s48 40
! 80 per cent. duty, IL So
i Freight per ton, 5 W
/ Insurance and other expenses, 90
| s72 go
Thus It will be perceived, placing all expenses at
the lowest and the al moderate scale that IL will
cost seventy dollars per ton 10 import railroad
IRON under the new tariff act Tell me what iron.
master cannot make an enormous profit IN selling
| railroad Hen at that price. The Mount Savage
! Company, which are now very busly engaged in
| making railroad iron, would be very glad to furnish
orders at that price. Can any reasonable man, upon
review Of these inconrrovertlbe facts, come the
conclusion that the tariff of ls46 will be injurious
TO the iron interests
| But there is one important fact which has of late
escaped the attention Of Journals in relation TO
| the Dhig senator's voting 10 solid phalanx in the
| United States Senate, for admitting railroad iron
free OF duty. Several corporations petitloned Con-
gIess TO that effect, and the wing party who have
ever conceded with all "monopoliSts and corpora
uons" having no interest in the welfare Of the poor
Iaborer engaged IN making railroad iron, voted en-
nasss to repeal the tariff duty on railroad iron.
Here 10 another evidence that the efforts Of the wing
leaders have been directed 10 the ayorng of coTpo-
rations instead Of the labonng classes. We annex
| for the benefit Of readers the following pro-
ceedIngs had ia the Senate. Ii will be perceived
that George Evans, of Mime, one OF the champions
| Of protection, and the vile denouncer and opponent
|
taking Evans thus speaks
| His justification was that he regarded the rail-
road iron as an article On which the domestic labor
Of the country TO be expended. IL required the
expenditure Of domestic industry make the arti.
| Gle valuable and useful. IL was estimated that one
hundred and fifty millions of dollars had been ex-
pended In the United States, in the construction of
| railroads.
Ill that had been done for them by the general gopern-
tnf, iods The remission Of about five millions Of duty
\ tie maintained that the United States government
had not done enough to encourage those works"
Senators Anterior, Cameron, Cass, and BaRby
all democras,) replied to the absurd doctrines Of
Mr.. Evans. Senator Bagby's speech vas to the
point He said
THAT his objection to the bill was, that it would
take, as he understood, uplcards Of million Of dok
lars from the treasury for the bsHSH IF certain railroad
companies, while every other citizen Of the country
had TO pay duties on all the iron he consumed
even for the most necessary purposes. The propO-
sition ras TOO monSiTOuS 10 be entertained for mo-
| meni"
Railroad iron is a large article Of manufacture
amongst the iron factories of his (Aeghany) eoun-
~, and the democratic party determined to ex-
hibt 10 the people the real facts connected with this
matter; for if the pernicous doctrines of the whig
party had succeeded Of allowing railroad iron to be
admitted free of duty, it would have thrown at
least FIVE hundred hands out Of employ in this
county. But, thanks to the democracy, the efforts
thwarted by the equitable and just principles
maintained by the democratic members Of Con-
gress.
The Democratic Herald of September 9, pub
lished at Butler, Pennsylvania, makes the follow
ing statement:
"The Great Western iron works in Armstrong
county, has now, piled up the banks of the Ale
ghany river one hundred and twenty thousand dol
lars Of railroad iron for the western market
and can 1t be supposed that if the wings had their
own way IN admitting this kind of iron into the
country duty-free, this establishment would be en-
gagged IN Its manufacture. IL is idle to suppose So
Let those who work at establishments of this kind
think but for moment and they will soon see the
nsincerily Of the wing party"
One of the principles upon which the whig party
have denounced in the tariff of 1896 is the adoption
Of ad paiortm duties in lieu Of "specifc" and "mini-
NUNS" But our wing friends forgot, in their fit
OF desperation, to lind some objection to the tariff of
1916, that the "great embodime n himself proclaim
ed in clear, distinct, and uDcquvocal terms that the
ad valorem principle the most Just and proper
He said in the United States Senate, in l542 "that
according to every sound principle of justice the ad
paLorem mode of taxation Is entitled 10 The preference
But even the protectionsts themselves adopted
in great part the ad vaorem duty in the tariff of
l642.
Out of $500 articles imported in the United States
only SIX hundred pay specific duty Under all pro-
tective tariffs, than half of the revenue has
been collected by ad valorem duties. Under the
act Of 1912 the amount collected by ad vaorem du.
ties 81 1879 Sl8 while the amount of specific
duties was only sl3,200,ll6 And is not the ad
yalorem duty more equitable and justi For instance
under the tariff of l842, the duty on brandy was 81
per gallon whether it cost in France fifty cents or
five dollars per gallon. L. this fair The poorer |
classes Of society who the common brandy, paw
as much duty on theirs as the fine brandy used by
opulent classes, even if it costs ten times as !
much. But the ad valorem principle regulates the |
mi Da nd NH
buy certain article, and according to the value OF
that article has the duty been laid. The principle
of the wing party in relation to specific duties it, |
that you can impose duty ,oithout regard TO quail
ty or patue. 1.-The operation of such duty upon |
many articles is most iniqui,ous. 1t violates every
principle ofequality, justice and offarness 1t com
pels the poor man to pay as great tax on his |
coarse and cheap articles, as the rich man on his
fine and high-priced article"
One OF the principles contained in the tariff of
lS42 is the "minnium duty" which has been abol-
ished by the tariff Of 1886. The Hon. John Fair
field, Of Maine, in late Speech thus speaks:
"The tariff Of lS42 contained the odious principle
of 'mnimums, ny which false value of an arti- |
Gle imported was assumed, and the duty based |
upon that false value Cotton cloths, for instance
not exceeding twenty cents the square in value were
taken and deemed to be worth that sum- and duty
Of 80 per cent. imposed thereon IT, therefore, the
cloth was worth only quarter Of the amount as |
sumod as was often the case, then the duty was in
fact, four times larger than its nominal amount |
That is to say, instead Of 80 per cent, it was in
fact 100 per cent. In this way the people were de-
luded and cheated. A duty appearing to be only
80 per cent, by little tariff hoc, pocus, turned
out to be 100 per cent. Mr.. F. said he had heard
he question very forcibIy put to the farmers how
they would like to have that principle introduced |
into the assessment Of town and county taxes |
Suppose the assessors should say that every farm |
worth SUM not exceeding 81, 900, should be taken
and deemed TO be worth that sum- and proceed to |
tax accordingly, would ii be regarded as Just and
right, and be cheerfuy submitted to, or denounced
as unjust, iniquious and oppressive Yet such is
this favore minimum principle of the wings, in |
troduced and held on to- in the tariff Of lS42, with
pertinacity almost astonishing, for the pur- |
pose of protecting the rich manufacturers of the |
country" |