The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-10-14


IL will be perceived by these comparisons, which
might be carried much farther, that there is very
strong analogy between the bill and the act under
consideration. We have already said, that the
most important difference, perhaps in the rate Of
duty in any particular case is in respect TO cottons
S per cent The most important difference in the
form OF the duty, is in the Of iron, the duties
in respect to six descriptions being specific ia
McKay's BILL and ad yalorem in the aH Of Con-
gress. But in both the duty other descriptions
numbering between thirty and forty, is the same
thirty per cent IL 10 TO be considered Also that the
specific duties iron in the six cases referred 10,
proposed by Mr.. McKay's b do not very essen-
TALLY differ in the actual rate, at present prices Of
iron, from the ad vslorem duties imposed by the
act Of 1916 on the same descriptions OF iron.' Il
was thought, by large number Of members Of Con-
gress-those from Pennsylvania and New York es-
pecially-that il would have been better to leave
these duties specific; and we believe that man " II
not most Of the members from this State, would
have preferred McKay's bill Of 1874, to the act
which has passed. But we think it must be quite
clear, from the comparisons we have made, that the
florence between the two propositions was not 40
great 10 Justify vote against the act with the
effect Of perpetuating the enormities Of the act of
1912. Should experience show that the act recent
ly passed is defective, that the rates of duty in any
too low, that the public interest requires
a change in the form Of the imposition by resto
ration Of specific duties particular instances, we
do not doubt that the necessary amendments will
be promptly made. great step has been taken
in the overthrow Of the act Of 1912; and the duty
ard the interest Of the democratic party are to OBJ
the operation Of the act which has been sub
stituted for it, and to give II the greatest attanable
perfection in its Details sustaining IL where 1t proves
beneficial, and amending it wherever experience
shall dictate the necessity of amendment. II would
be equally unreasonable and unwise, before it has
gone into operation, TO assume, on the one hand +,
that it will be prejudical in its consequences as
whole, or, on the other, that 1t shall not be amend
ed in its details, if defects become apparent in it.
The rates Of duty established by the act are, in
respect to the principal articles Of domestic man.
ufacture fair, if not liberal even when considered
with view to the protection of our own indus
try against foreign competition. We do not pro-
pose to enter into this broad field Of discussion.
We do not propose 10 inquire how far it is justh.
able, under the constitution TO impose duties on
foreign manufactures for the purpose of giving
encouragement to our own, or making that object
incidental to the paramount purpose of raising rev.
enue. But no one who has looked into the history
Of our revenue system from its foundation to the
present day, fail to be struck with the fact that
the duties originally imposed for the express pur-
pose of protection, while our manufactures were in
their infancy, were comparatively low, ranging as
general rule, from 10 to Is per cent. and that the
rates have been progressively increased the man
ufactures have become firmly established or at least
while they have been in the process of establish
ment. IT, with the advantage Of tax to the amount
of 25 or 80 per cent. the products Of foreign Ia
Dor, and after century for experiment and trial,
those who are engaged in the manufacture of SINH
lar articles at home are not satisfied, there is little
reason to hope that they will be content with any
thing short of such exorbtant rates of duty as to
give them entire possession Of the domestic market
by the imposition Of duties which shall be, In ef-
feet, prohibory. At all events, it is always a mat
Ter of grave consideration with the consumers who
constitute the great mass of the industrious classes
in the United States, and on whom the burden of
this indirect taxation falls, whether rates of duty
should be augmented, on account of their alleged
inadequacy to sustain particular manufacture
against foreign competition. This inquiry involves
not only the question of power under the constitu-
ton to impose duties for protection alone but also
the further question, whether manufacture, which
cannot be continued at home, by taxing the cores
pondng foreign article to one-ourth or one-third Of
is entire value, should be sustained at greater cost
Itself, rendsrs n fecessmy
tons, and to see, in the briefest possible space
what the community, including the agricultural and
laborng classes have gained by the substitution of
the act of 1916 for the act Of 1S42. This will be
best comprehended by a comparison of the rates of
duty respectively imposed by those acts on some
leading articles of domestic consumption. The for
mer we give reduced to ad valorem rates accord
ing to actual collections Of revenue on Imports