Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-07-31

protective system. That gentleman is aware OF
the truth OF The position design presently more
fully 10 illustrate that under such protective sys-
TEN, no small portion oil The manufacturing and
other kindred classes of The Northern and Middle
States, receiving as they do far more OF benehl
Than burden from the duties imposed on imports,
will practically contribute nothing To the re,emp-
ton OF that debt. The encumbrance Of its an
nual interest," the burden OF its ultimate discharge,
will be imposed exclusively on The classes and
sections which suffer under The exacions oil Inc
protective system. The West, the agriculturisls
and yeomanry OF the genleman's own section,
and we Of the South, the common victims OF This
system, will have 10 bear almost exclusively The
whole burdens OF the war, thus accumulated IN
the shape OF public debt. Better, Us II notD
by far, that at once, even in the moment Oh IN
curing them, we should unite in The adoption oil
war lax, which, however ii may operate on US,
will at least equally operate on those classes and
portions, which else will not merely escape all
participation in The burden, but actually realize
from it, al our expense, gain and benefit.
Il may well excite surprise too, Mr.. Chair
man, that any portion of the Democracy from
the West averSe as they have shown themselves
TO the gross inequalities and heavy burdens Of The
tariff Of 1912, should yet declare, that unless this
war tax on tea and coffee be stricken out, they
will vote against The bill reported BY the Commit
lee of Ways and Means, and thus leave The Ia
riff Of 1912 in full operation. Why, sir, il the
duties on tea and coffee will operate unequally
and harshly on their constituents, have they no,
again and again denounced the dnt;cs in the Ia
riff of 1912 on sugar, Oh iron, on sail, on coarse
woollens and very many oiher articles, most OF
which, like lei ard coffee are assimiaed in the
minds OF the people with neeessaries, as most
unequal oppressive and unjust! Have they not
stamped the cdious minimum and specific lea-
lures OF the tariff bill Of lS42 with the stigma oil
fraud, and demonstrated their gross injustice to
The poorer classes? How, then, in any conin-
gency, can they prefer these more numerous,
these more crying inequalities and expressions,
TO the endurance of a tax, even though considered
UNEQUAL, on only two articles of no greater ne
cessity or more general use, and that tax of
only temporary duration? The simplest calcua-
lion would convince them, even on The score OF
interest," from apartheir reiterated pledges 10 re-
peal the tariff OF 1912 Of the Jolly and injury OF
such a course
But 10 return from This DEPRESSION, which may
have served, Mr.. Chairman, 10 illustrate The pure
ly revenue character and general fairness oi du-
ties on imports not produced within the country,
We must recollect that such duties may not al
ways be laid without encounterng overriding in
conveniences and objections, and. besides, would
not alone suffice 10 supply The requisite revenue
for the wants OF The Government. Duties must
then be imposed, likewise, on the importation OF
articles produced within The country. What will
be the effect OF such dnties? Here, as in The
case OF imports not produced within The country,
on all the articles imported, the duty becomes an
element in the price, and enhances 10 lis amount
The cost OF the imported article 10 the purchaser.
The whole amount of duty on The imported ari.
Gle TO the extent of lis consumption, is tax, the
proceeds from which are received by the Go.
vernment. Blu, the effect of such duty on the
producers OF like articles within the country, be-
comes now observable as producing inequality.
Ii the producer within the country Of any given
article, on the import OF which from abroad
duty was laid, produced only enough for his own
consumption, il is nantes, he would be simply
freed from all participation in The burden OF tax,
which must be paid by all other consumers. But
if he raised, as almost every producer does, mol
merely for individual consumption, but for sale,
his products would command the added price i'm
posed by the duty on the imported article coming
in competition; or, surprising preference 10
exist Tor the imported article, al precisely the same
price, and a consequent necessity, on The part OF
the producer within The country, 10 take some
what less price would command an increased
value very nearly equal to the enhancement on
the foreign article by the dizzy. The price being
thus enhanced 10 the producer within The country
10 The amount, or very nearly, OF the duly on The
imported article, the duty, instead OF tax, would
operate as bounty, 10 the precise amount oil
such enhancement paid 10 him by the consumers
of his products, precisely as The duty on the i'm
ported article would te paid TO lhe Government by
the consumers OF that.
By any duties, then, on imports similar to those
raised, or which may be produced in the coun-
try whose Government lays them, bonn,ies and
protection become blended and complicated with
taxes and burdens. Inconsistent as are The TWO
things in nature, and diverse as are the purposes
10 be accomplished BY them, they are still, to
Limited extent, insepaTabls. The one-protectlon
TO some being the inevitable concomilant ana
incident 10 The olher-,he tax on The many
When, however, the duty is laid honestly for
revenue, the bounty, or protection, IS but the IN
evitabe incident-not the end designed or sought
and only illustrates the universal order OF the
political, as oil The moral and physical world that
what operates by general rule burden or evil 10
the many, becomes by some peculiarly OF ex
ception boon or blessing 10 few. To such
inequality, known 10 exist as inseparable 10 the
system, none will object; but on the contrary, all
will rejoice in the benefits thus legitimalely real
lied from the general evil of taxation.
Such, Mr.. Chairman, is the system OF taxation
by import duties; but TO make il taxation honest
ly for revenue, and fair and equitable in lis ope-
ration, j, is manies; the duty or Tax should be as
low. extended over as large an amount OF con-
Der OF consumers, as may be consistent with The
raising Of the amount required; while the boun-
" should be confined to as small an amount OF
consumption, and be limited Ia as lew consumers,
as may be- consistently with the same object.
Now duties may be imposed 10 any amount,
from the lowest, operating amos, exclusively as
tax, to the highest, which, excluding all imports
will be purely bounty, and Gu, off all receipts 10
the Government. In the range between these ex-
remes, there is wide latitude OF discretion, &C.
cordins 10 the object designed. Revenue e1clu-
svely, or protection, yet not without reference to
revenue or protection exclusively, may be The OBJ
iect II the first, the lowest duty which will raise
The requisite amount should be adopted; il the
cond, the highest duty, or at least higher duty
than may b. necessary 10 yield the revenue re-
quired will be adopted il the last, p:oaibitory dn-
ties will be rcsor,cd 10. II may seem strange that
high and low rates of duty may raise sometimes
the same, or about the same, amount oil revenue;
vet such both experience and The reason OF The
thing demonstrate TO be the fact. low duty, az
hitting a larger amount OF imports, aud conse-
quently more extended consumption by great
or number, may suffice 10 raise given sum-
A much higher duty which may most seriously
restrict the amount OF importation and the extent
of the consumption ofthe imported articles, yet BY
reason of its larger exaclion, may give the same.
The very highest amount of revenue which
any article of import will yield may thus
be obtained at very different rates OF duty;
and the error has been Blu, leo prevalent, that,
provided the amoun, Of revenue raised was line
greatest that could be obtained from an arii-
Gle oil import, it was thereby clearly shown 10
be pure revenue duty. A less tax on greater
amount of imports may manifeslly equal in pro-
duct greater tax on less amount cl imports.
The position, therefore, assumed by The gentle
man from Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,l the other
day. that The lowest duy and the highest duty that
will yield the larges, amount Of revenue are one
and the same duty, was gross falacy. The de.
rision which he attempted TO cast on The able and
luminous repor; OF the Secretary Of the Treasu-
ny, for having maintained the contrary as fun
damental principle, may be Justly retorled on The
critic, who, in assuming to correct, has exhibited
only his own Misrepresentation or ignorance
Why, sir, The very case supposed by The gentle
man, TO illustrate the Justice OF his censure, ex-
poses his Jolly and coTrects his own error. lie
en- nnnsed Inn non pa;rs 0f shines irnnrted nj a