Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-09-25
@~LSsl =ssss.ssaC
EI!l!|j[i|I[i'E|ll|ll||ll1III| Z! !.
lsssMaa4h.LLA - -
--S--------->s>-- --~>-~>~>--- ysstsygyf.el&=1yaS
@s Ezlassl5ss l.u4.,
MOND, VA.
RICH MOND, VA.
Friday Morning, September 25, ls4G.

nm OF The al Ilt0Ftm ana sPetG'N
The Times of Friday and Saturday contains
LONG review of our article OF last "een "" VI"
snh;ec, When we penned that article, W.
scarcely expected to be compelled 10 aiiooe deai
- ,be matter of which il treats. we e4ah''ne'
Mr. Claws remarks candidy and fairly nehhel
adding 10 nor sublracting from them one Jo' o.
,,u,e If their plain import. Mr.. Davis article
in the National In,elligencer we treated III '''
same manner. When our task was co'ip'e'
we ,bouobt that all we asserted was 50 PLAINLY
true tina, it was so evident that the lssoiuho"S
of Mr. Clay, in 1912, did not warrant 'ne aeo01
lions of Mr.. Davis, that we would mol pe asa"'
REQUIRED TO demonstrate that the srea. us
champion was in favor Of al uatorfm IN pieie''
.nce 10 speciic duties. But the Editors OF lne
Times seem 10 be of different opinion anu
they ill nearly four columns on Friday anu 9a-
turday 10 show that we have done injus''ce po'"
10 Mr.. Clay and MIR. Davis. we are even re-
presented as attacking The integrity oil BON 'hese
gentlemen. OF the former We said no.h''s' o''
Thai he preferred al raieycns 10 sPecihc au"sS'
and quoted his language 10 prove our assertion
OF the latter, that he drew unwarrantaole ihief'
.nces from MIR. Clays language-and we useu
his name only as we have right 10 use tha' OF
apy political opponent who charges portion o.
onr Democratic Congressman with "unnatufai
baseness." While we are not asked Tor our aa-
vice. we would say TO The Editors oi The lines
that ,phen they have mind 10 complain OF OIL
fepsiye language, and institute fippant Compare
sons. they can find fl subjects for both their COM
plants and their comparisons in the Wing par
ty and in Wing productons-unless, indeed Ike
old Polonius they can see in cloud the likeness
Of camel a weasel, or whale, as they may De
told by those above them in The party line. bu'
10 return TO our subject.
The Times contends thai Mr.. Davis gives The
right account of Mr.. Clay's opinions, when he
saws that his plan was declare by law the value
OF all imports, and then lay duty OF twenty-five
per cent upon that valuation. The reason gwen
bv The Times is that Mr. Simmons OF Rhode
Island had, with Mr. Clays knowledge and appfo-
baton, determined upon such scheme; and 'ha
to this scheme Mr.. Clay had reference when he
delivered his speech on the true public poiicy ID
March. 1912. If we understand rightly, MT
Davis takes different grounds. he contends ihai
the principle of establishing by law the value OF
all imports, thereby rendering all duties neces-
sarliy specific, is engratea in The celebrated COM
promise act OF 1888, which was presented more
than nine years before Mr.. Simmons framed his
BILL Speaking Of The compromise act, Mr. DAVIS
says:
aThis law was framed upon these general
principles ,,.u
lst. That mill 1912 there should be small
biennial reduction OF existing duties inc MINI |
mum the specific and the al valorem duties allto
continue for the whole period, suhIec 10 the c.
rabished rate OF reduction on each, Wihous ANY |
change of lis character.
"2d That in 1912 all duties should be al va
loren on The home valuation; and, 10 preserve
uniformity OF duties that valuation TO be esab-
lshed by Congress in the law, &c, &c
Now we say. ,ha, there is no such principle |
in that law as the second one mentioned above
If we are mistaken, we call upon the Times 10
poin, il out. If no, mistaken, i, will ADM, that
MIR. Davis intentionally or Internationally mis-
represents the language OF The Compromise Act
Asain-Mr Davis brings forward the resolu'
lions OF 1912; they are in these words
"Rcsolr,3, Tha, such an adequate revenue can
moi be Obtained by duties upon imports: without
adopting higher rate than twenty per cent, d
provided Tor by the Compromise Act, WHICH, a'
the time OF lis passage, was supposed ana d..
sumed as a rate that would supply suiie'en'
revenue lof me economical administration OIL inc
Government
"Rcsolred. therefore, That The rate oil duties on
foreign imports ought to be augmented oeyonu
the rate oi twenty per cent, SO as 10 Piouute
net revenue of twenty-six millions VI uoldis,
twenty-five for the ordinary expenses OF tne GOV
eminent, Two for the payment 81 'he e@is''ns w.
,
cies. ;,;,
"Resolrsd, That in an adjustment ola Iafih 10
raise an amour, of twenty-six millions oil ieSe-
nue., the principles Of the COMPROMISE Ac' seue-
rally should be adhered 10; and that esp. Gt0"g
ararimum rat. VI al raorem d1ttes should oe e'.a-
N,,ted, from which there ought to be as HUE ue-
parure as possible
Commenting on these resolutions he says
"Threc principles are distinctly embodied 10
them. First All the revenue necessary lot .he
sunnort Of Government Is 10 be raised oy uulies
nnnn fn,eioo imporis. Second. That such duties
are 10 be laid upon the home RADIATION o. t0fetsn
aoods Be established bv ia,c. Third. That the rate
Shonld be twenty-five per cent upon inc nome pa"-
of;on on dutiaLlc articles alone. IL was p!oViueu
,hat The principles oil The Compromise Bill sho"'a
he adhered to in framing The new measure, duu
those stated were taken from that law. ins'e""
of adopting the inefficient and absurd ho''on =
N M
nlan requires the ArNc raine OF all dullaue aiio !
~ no derIored anil established in The law ana
mon his ascerta,ued Efed and infeetble raadt'on
NJ oil articles, a duty OF twenty-five per cent. was
N he laid. So tar from abandoning the Ptinc'pie
of specifc duties, il made all duties specihci ~
specityine the value OF every class oi 'iue'e>'
and leyying a specific rate oil duty upon 'ia' Va
lue Thus, in the law, Russia henp peinS, va "a
lined al two hundred dollars per ton, wonlu ne
snh;ec, 10 specific duty ri forty doiiais; pi@ oi
being valued at lhrly-two dollars per Ton, woulo
he subiec, 10 a specific duty OF eight doliars mo
la,ses being valued at iwenly-touT cents per gar
Ion would be subject TO specifc duty OF s'
cents and SO on throughout the whole list OF uu
liable articles"
Now we say, as We said in onr former aI'ice
that we DEFY any man 10 find one syllable In wv
above resolutions which hints at the idea OF ia
in. and declaring by law the value Of all dunaol'
articles. If the Times can do this, II can o'
more than we can. If not, ii will aamll INA
MIR. Davis has blundered again.
The Compromise Bill and the above resoiu
,;ons we understand TO be the data from whcl
AIR Davis inieIs thai Mr.. Clay was in 1883 an
ls42 not only opposed to al ralorem when com
nared with specific duties butthat ne intended
anplv The ad rolorcm principle in such manne
as 10 make it entirely specific 10 expose seu VI,
understandable inference, we nE psn assaiIs without
oil las. MSsa Single fact to warrant the position
il thereby assumes We expectedi TO enlishter
rs on the subject; 10 show us in what We misun
ders,ood MIR. Davis language TO reconcile ,he
Compromise Ac, and the resolutions OF isi'
with the Interpretation Of MIR. Davis, and Il
show US in what particulars the language oil The
former justified the construction which had peer
placed upon them. This ii did not do, and dle
not attempt 10 do. Mr. Davis was lett alone
and the Times proceeded upon principles OF IT'D
own. And now we have 10 request oil lha' PRINT
if it intends 10 notice this article, 10 say explicit