The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-24

's~.sHhS mohhci thoii dppcoio unsc oceb tNoiA
with elsewhere, and with desire 10 MODIFY and
ACCOMMODATES, and thereby TO establish this
great subject upon grounds OF permanent stability
From the Boston Post, July "a.
THE NEW TARIFF BILL--AD yALoREM AND sPE'
ClFlC DUTIES.
The main point in the discussion ia the Senate,
and conversations on Change, touching the new Ia
rIf bill, turns upon the supposed dangers and
frauds of ad valorsm duties. Ii is cOnlended
that this is new principle, and will open wide
door TO fraud. The difference is merely this, that
AN ad yalorem duty is a tax upon the paIus of AN
tlcleas for instance twenty-five per cent or TWEEN
~ per cent on the value of cotton goods, and thirty
per cent on the value Of woolen goods &c, while
specific duty would be so much yard on all kinds
OF fabrics, without regard TO their value, by which
The fabric worn by the poor man lis taxed as high,
or higher, than that used by the rich.
The principle, therefore, seems TO be sound one,
and sappled In all town, city, county, and State
taxes and all assessments in copartnership or other
concerns in business Besides, il has been the pre-
yans principle in every tariff that has been passed,
and in 1912 was suenuously advocated by Mr..
Clay, and other champions of protection, as the
sOundest and safest mode Of eyying duties for pro-
lection and revenue IL would seem singular, there
fore, that the opponents Of the tariff bill shoald
base their main objections on the ad valorem prin'
ciple Of the bill.
Mr.. Lewis, Of Alabama, in the Senate, has made
eiple in which he discusses the tariff bill with cool
judgment and close reasoning, as financial meas
ure, and eombats the argument on the other side
tat specific duties alone insure certainty In the
collection Of the revenue. One fact illustrates his
position much stronger than is generally conceded,
and that is, that Of the whole amount Of revenue
raised the last year under the existing tariff Of 1912
SIS 1872 81 have been derived from ad yalorem du-
ties, and but sl3 300, IL from specific duties This
shows that the revenue, under the highest specific
tariff ever passed, depends more upon ad yalorem
duues than upon specific; and If more than half OF
the revenue comes from that source, It is difficult
10 understand Why the balance may not be col
ecisd Just az effectively upon the same principle.
Mr.. Evans, Of Maine, has replied 10 Mr.. Lewis
fully, and MIR. Webster partially but, 30 far as the
question Of revenue Is concerned they fail to change
this position. II has well been suggested-and It is
not yet satisfactorily snsvered-that as to any APP
pretended frauds IN invoices OF the value of imports
in order 10 reduce the duties there is much room
or fraud and less for detection in specific duties, as
10 the quantity and measurement. IL Is as easy TO
swear TO n false measurement as TO false invoice
and Il u much more difficult for custom-house Of
koers 10 measure the goods inyoiced in packages
than To appraise the market value.
The difference between specific duties and duties
levied the cost Of an article is not, in fact, so
much question Of revenue a. Of protection. Spe-
ci6c and minimum duties, under the present tariff
assume higher value than the article COSTS and in
iow'Pnced iabries such dutes are undoubtedly more
Prohlbl'ory than duty on thelr market value But
this applies almost exclusively to lowpriced arti-
ees and In that description Of manufactures, It is
admitted, protection Is not necessary for we can
ssfully compete with the like foreign manufac-
ture IN any MARKET and besides the cheaper fabrics
OF common consumption ought 10 DC less ANed
than those OF higher value, because IL 10 Out Just
discrimination In iaVor OF labor Another ProVi-
sion also comes into force IN the PROPOSED mrlh 10
operate as a salutary check upon differentiation In
invoices.
The ninth section OF the new bill provides that u
upon the examination oil any parcel or package OF
goods the appraisers are OF opinion that there IS an
valuation the goods may be taken Tor the UNI
ted States and sold at auction IN twenty days, the
invoice value only TO be paid to the owner or I'M
porter from the proceeds OF the SALE with i've per
cent. in addition. Let this be enforced as readily
can be, and no importer VIII risk INSTRUMENTATION.
Another check will be found IN the provision OF the
eighth section, which allows the owner or agent TO
make such addition TO the invoice entry as he deems
be the fair market value, upon which the eollec-
tor shall cause an appraisement to be made OF the
dutiable Vauei and II such apprhsement exceeds
the additional invoice value ten per cant, then an
additional duty to the duty required by law shall
be imposed OF twenty-five per cent on the appraised
value.
With faithful execution Of the law, aided by
the vgaace of those who are Interested IN prevent
ing fraudulent valuation IN the markets, u would
seem that a duty on value, thus guarded, might
be collected and enforced with quite as much certain
ty as a specific duty, and with equal protection TO
the extent Of the tax levied on the goods.
1t therefore seems to resolve itself back into the
single question whether the amount OF duties I'M
posed either ad vaorem or SPECIFIC, are sufficient for
and protection, and this with the DIRECTORS
to the bill must depend upon the view they take
of the amount Of tax necessary to secure protec-
ton.
The ohiectiOna take simultaneously by the
opponents Of the b-vz: that it will not yield suf
cent revenue and that it is not enough protective
seem to be entirely contradictory, and destroy each
other. Thus, Mr.. Lewis, sustained by the est-
mates Of the Secretary OF the Treasury afirms that
the bill will not yield twenty-eight millions of reve
nue., while Mr. Evans brings 1t under twenty, and
Mr.. Webster puts it at nineteen millions, and
both complain thatit will not be sufficiently pro-
tective.
Now the less the revenue the less must be the inn
portation and the greater the protection. IL the
present tariff is sufficiently protective, and yet yields
over twenty-eight millions Of revenue, it shows that
the highest duties ever laid do not prevent impor-
tation, and therefore do not exclude foreign compe-