The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-25

| cd among hem"
These were the views of those two fathers of the
republican faith and yet they sometimes quoted
| as the friends of leyyng duties discriminating for
| protection. / admit they conceded the power
Of laying discriminating duties under the power 10
| regulate commerce, but only for commercial pur-
poses II is true, in some cases, they went so far
as 10 admit where any particular nation which laid
onerous restrictions upon trade was extensively
engaged in particular branch of manufactures, we
| might levy heavy duties upon their productions
But not for the purpose Of permanently obstructine
| commercial intercourse with her. but 70 cause her
20 relax her restrictions. lp other words, for the
purpose in the end Of securing free trade and not
for the purpose of obstructing it permanently.
Having thus seen for what purpose, under the
| power TO regulate commerce, discriminating duties
may be laid let US inquire if the tariff act of 1872
levies them for any such purpose. In tina act com
mercia principles are as distinctly lost sight Of as
revenue principles Il gives comparatively free
trade, on part, 20 nations in exchange for
restrictions; and restrictions otheEs in esshango
| for comparative FREQ trade. And tbs Y soue ~ !.
nation whose policy it should be 10 encourage The
most unrestricted commerce with the world; and
done, too under the preext Of regulating commerce.
will not detain the committee by going through a
| calculation as TO all the nations with whom we
| have commercial intercourse. But IL would prove
the ruth Of Whist have asserted. Asan Illustration,
| take the case Of Great Britain and Brazil Week
ported to the latter place. Of our own poducts for
Il
ties levied and collected upon which, in her ports
| were 81 ,466,2O7 OF these exports, 81, 599 1872
we're Of -four, principally from Baltimore and Rich
mond, and made Of wheat, 10 large extent, from
my own district The duty upon this -Four, levied
/ in the ports OF Brazil is 48l per cent uDon fixed
minimum value Of 50 % per barrel-which, as the
commercial document Of last year shows, is near
double its real price. In other words the duty lev
led is upwards Of so per cent Our imports for the
same time were sl3,4l 4s9, Of which sl2,089, 933
were entirely free Of duty and the balance bearing
| a very light duty. have taken these three wears
because they were the last three preceding the tariff
act of 1912, for which, at that time we had returns;
| and they show the spirit in which that act was
passed. But have examined the commercial doc
ument of last year. and the trade Of that year does
not vary materially from that Of the three years re-
ferred to- and the variation such il is makes the
inequality and want OF reciprocity still greater.
Nov let us turn 10 our trade with Great Britain.
For the year l640l take that year alone because il
| will avoid too great complication of calculation;
the others do not materially vary the result, and
as far as they vary il at all II is in favor OF my argu-
ment. For that year our exports TO Great Britain,
exclusive Of tobacco were $50, 624 9Sl; the duties
collected were s. 800 946, or little upwards Of 10
| per cent The rate Of these duties were in many
instances, reduced before the enactment of our tariff
law Of l642i and most of them since have been en-.
| urely removed or at any rate very much modified.
For instances Of the $500, 946 OF duties collected
| s., PAT $50 % were from cotton, the duty upon
which was removed, even before the late modifca-
| ton OF her tariff was proposed; and much Of the
balance was from articles upon which there was
| reduction before that time. But without including
these last, the average British duty upon our ex-
ports exclusive Of tobacco was about per cent.
| And this was the law II stood before the late
modification proposed by the British ministry. That
modification, which before this time, is doubtless
| the law of the land, aboishes, or very much re-
duces, all the remaining duties, except upon tobac
and In hat d nth
Great Britain is already free she make il.
But may be asked why | except that article' In
the first place, the duty she leves upon il is not to
raise up rival production in her sssri,ories to
exclude ours. IL 10 not protection, hat purely a
revenue duty, levied upon what she considers a
perncious luxury; to enable her to collect which,
she prohibits its cultivation, under sevee pepul en-
actmens, in the United Kingdom; but for which en-
nctments il would be cultivated at home to nearly,
or quite, sufficient extent TO supply her demand.
Perfectly good tobacco be made in the southern
counties Of England, and most Of Ireland Indeed
before the cultivation of it was prohibited, it was
grown in Ireland to very large extent. Thus,
to enable her to raise large revenue from it, she
gives the tobacco-growers monopoly of her mar
| ket, and some of the best informed merchants en-
gagged in the tabacco trade of opinion that this
monopoly more than compensates the tobacco
grower for the heavy duty which is collected.
| Let now see upon what footing our trade with
her American colonies stands. To them exports in
1910, including tobacco, of which there con-
siderable export, were of the value of IS, 537 ,056
Total amount of duties levied, SlS7 ,920-between
three and four per cent. only on their imports from
| us.
Now let us see what amount ofduties we levy
upon our imports from Great Britain under the pres
ent law. The average rate of duty, under the law
of l642, upon dutabIe articles, calculated at the
treasury, is IS per cent and fraction. LSee annu-
al report page III But the average duty imposed
upon imports from Great Britain, is much higher
as most of the articles, bearing very high duty,
imported from that country. Let us take few
leading articles