The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-09-05

during the next session of Congress, to
receive copy of the Congressional Regis
Ter and Ti- Weekly Union.
THE "REPEAL" OF THE NEW TARIFF
The protectionists are beginning TO understand
that their cry OF "repeal" against the tariff is blade
Of two edges, and will cut both ways II we are to
have "repeal" agitation, there will be two parties
of repeaers. II the seeks to do away the pres
ent tariff for the sake Of passing law more protee-
tive, the other seems not disnclned to pursue the
same object, in order to bring about a still greater
reduction Of duties. OH.
Nor do these anti-protectonist repealers show
themselves prominently principally in those sec
tons OF country where tariff for revenue only,
and not for protection has been hitherto most popu-
lar Not in the south, nor yet in the west do we
hear chiefly the repeal" cry Of the protectonists
met by the answering "repeal" cry Of those who
would reduce the duties imposed by the tariff Of
1876. This counter agitation on the contrary,
to US from the north. The article which we give
below from the New York Evening Post upon this
subject is well worthy OF attention-not alone for
the point and force with which IL is written but for
the earnestness Of purpose which it displays, and
the strong presented in support Of its views
1t is especially worthy the attention Of the capital
lists engaged in the various branches Of manufac-
tures, who, at the time Of the passage Of the new
law, clamored so violently for its repeal" Such
indications Of public sentiment this article gives
must show these men, that in entering the field Of
repeal agitation, they are treadng upon dangerous
ground We know not how the manufacturers
may view the matter, but, in our judgment, they
will find it ere long their wises policy to rest salts
fed with an average protection Of twenty-five or
thirty per cent
For ourselves, as we have often before stated, we
have advocated the new tariff in the first place be-
cause we felt ourselves bound and pledged in COM
mon with the mass of the democratic party, to put
1912; and secondly, because in the revenue and ad
vaorem principles Of the tariff, we recognise the
only Just and constitutional basis of our revenue
legislation. II is obvious that these principles of
the new law interpose no obstacle to such an amend
ment of its provisions as may be necessary to re.
duce to the lowest revenue limit any Of those duties
which may be found upon trial to press unequally
and unjustly upon the great agricultural interests Of
the country. We have always regarded the new
tariff as compromise between the ultra protection
lists and their opponents. One Of the advantages of
the moderate and compromising spirit in which the
bill is drawn, has always been, in our view, the
promise Of stability and permsnence in our revenue
system which such spirit alone give. But il
such moderation among the advocates Of low duties
is to be met only by fierce cry Of repeal" from
the ranks of the proteconis,s, 1t is surely time to
understand that when the tariff of 1886 shall be
abolished, very grave question will arise, whether
its substitute and successor ought not to be still
less protective. Let those who call the new tariff
southern and sectional" hear the opinions on this
point of leading democratic journal at the north.
"SHALL WE REPEAL THE NEW TARIFFs-We
have no sort of objection, for part The cry Of
repeal raised by the wing party the moment the
bill passed, and is perseveringly kept up. If the
subject is to be further agitated, we enter with all
our hearts into the agitation, and join in the cry Of
repeal. The bill which became law at the last
session of Congress is faulty enough to make US
wish for better. 1t is too protective, too partial to
certain interests at the expense of the great body Of
the people. II grinds the consumer TO enrich the
ml-owners; levies tribute upon the slender purses
of US who own no manufacturing stock, in order TO
swell the dividends of those who do taxes the fire
coal mines in Pennsylvania may demand higher
price for his coal
"Let us repeal the new tariff then, and substitute
for lower and less oppressive rate of duties. If
the manufacturers insist upon II, the sooner 1t is
done the better The new tariff is mere compro-
mise, measure which deals tenderly with their
interests, law full of concessions TO their preiu-
dices and their clamors. If they are dissatisfied
with it, let it be abrogated, and law enacted in its
place which consuts only the interests of the peo-
pie. If there is a single impost in the new tariff
from beginning to end, (and we are sure that there
are hundreds which has the effect of discouragng
mportations let it be struck out and duty reduced
to the lowest revenue point substituted. We are
fully convinced that a law greatly diminishing the
rate of duties might be adopted with advantage to
the revenue account of the increased mporta-
ton and consumption which would follow.
"The duties on imported woolens, for example ARE
by the new tariff to be thirty per cest. Will any
man pretend that tax, amounting to nearly one
third of the value of the cloth of which poor mans
coat is made, will not discourage the importation Of
the commodity Make the duty twenty per cent. !,
and the poor man buys his coat for less money! and
the revenue receives large increase. Is there any
reason why the same exorbitant tax should be put
upon plain glass wares of every sort, including the
piainest tumbers used at the humblest table--any
other reason but to favor the owners of our glass
factoresi Is il not for similar that the same
tariff imposes duty of forty per cent upon every
piece of glass that has touched the stone Of the glass
cutteri Why are coal and coke to pay duty Of
thirty per cent? Why iron and its manufac-
lures, and almost every article manufactured of the
various metals, loaded with the same heavy duty
IL the manufacturers have the face say that these
duties are protection, away with them, and sub
stitute strict duty adjusted with an eye to
the convenience of the consumer; the manufacturer
will lose no advantage by abrogating them. II, on
the other hand, they are protection, they are
far partial and unjust; impediments to commerce
IL H.. -