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

Foreign correspondence by the Cambria from England
ArRm 10, 1886.
From what can in the newspapers, the Secreta.
~ ofthe Treasury and the active supporters of
enue tariff, seem 10 have undertaken arduous and
Inyldous duty and one which requires more than
ordinary patience and perseverance,. The same
senseless eamor appears TO he going with you by
the "proieetionists, we have amongst the "pro.
tectioolsts" here-ake yiolent--caling hard names
and lmPuting bad motives. Here, Peel is stigma.
tized as traitor TO his party, and every variety Of
situDeration 10 heaped upon HIM for touching any
thing affecting the agricultural monopoly; and with
you, whoever ventures 10 show that an enormous
and unjust scale Of Duties exists, is called ian
my To his county, or il is said that he is Influenced
by British feelings and British interests" But
truth must prevail at last, although II may not
soon as you or ! could WISH for people begin
ming TO and understand that protection" is real
ly nothing more than the taking something out Of
one mans pocket and putting 1t into the pocket Of
another
In the war Of words which il going on il appears
TO me that several matters discussed which have
nothing whatever 10 do with the real question. For
instance, il is no matter whether the domestic man
ufaciurer can, or cannot, afford TO sell the article
which he makes at given price, or ten times thai
price; and It Ia equally inimateral whether he be
making hundred per cent. profit, or profit at all
Some parties may be conducting their business with
greater skill and economy than others, and one be
making a large profit, while another is losing but
that is no reason why Congress should legisate so
as TO render the inefficient mans business profitable,
by obiging every consumer TO buy his article at q
certain high price. The real question should be,
what Is a fair and reasonable protection for the
ufacturer To have? Should IL be 20, 80, or 40 per
cent, or should 1t be morel Let the actual extent
Of protection be agreed upon and then carry out the
principle fairly and honestly. Is 20 per cent as
much as he ought 10 expect II so, he has il al
ready IN the nj IrnD and lmDOFterai
profits; even If foreign goods we're admitted duty
free; bat If he require TO make up for his lack
Of skill in managing his business, or because he
chooses to pay high salaries TO those who manage
for him, or for many other reasons which every
practical man will be alive to- give him more and TO
any extent you please, only let people knOv the
real amount oft; and having so agreed upon scale,
leave the manufacturer to work TO profit or to loss
under IT, and TO meet foreign competition best he
may. The legislature will thus far have doae its
duty both to the manufacturer and to the con.
sumer.
Again: with respect to the ,quaryud valuation
The advocates Of protection" say this mode Of
leyyng the duty is necessary to prevent fraud on the
revenue, which the ad valorem principle gives rise
to. IL So let them have il; but let it be put down to
s. 10, Is, or 20 per cent, las the case may require
so to leave the duty precisely what 1t should be
in conformity with the extent Of protection which
the Legislature meant to give. But do not under the
pretext Of protecting the revenue, impose an add.
iional duty beyond ii When have replied in this
way to a party who has been contending for the
square-yard valuation, have found he always has.
tened to change the subject, from which have con-
cluded that unless additional protection" could
be got, it mattered very little to him which way the
duty was levied. But it is a mistake to suppose
that the revenue will be defrauded under proper
system Of ad valorem duties, because merchandise
may be made liable TO seizure by the officers, and in
case Of dispute jury Of importers, who are familiar
with the article seized, would soon settle the mat
ter
Another point which the protectionists urge is,
the repenus requires high tariff. Cheapness, how
ever, always increases consumption, and it is diff
cult TO understand how the revenue is benefited by
articles which ercuded entirely, or which can be
imported to but very limited extent.
Upon this subject ! am sorry that duty is not to
be laid on tea and coffee. To have done this, and
at the same time to have reduced the duties on all
other imported articles the lowest possible point
would have been political economy, and greatly
to the benefit of the people. Suppose duty Of five
or ten cents a pound on tea, what would that tax
take out Of every PERSONS pocket in the course of
the year, How many pounds weight does each in
dvidual consume on the AVERAGE and how much
would each family consume in the year, A tax of
even ten cents on the consumption Of family would
come to no great sum; but how much money does
that family consume in cothingi And supposng the
duties to be reduced to reasonable scale, by which
they would buy their clothing for from 20 to so per
cent less than they have now to pay fos them, the
actual saving would be very great indeed.