The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-31

ty. He, however, buys a good, fair article, te
yards, weighing say one pound, at rs cents yard
total 81 SO The wealthy capitalist, lordly banker
OF manufacturer, desires silk dress for his lady
But she won't consent TO wear such coarse artieh
that worn by the wife Of the mechanic or labor
ing man, and he therefore buys ten yards Of nm
quality at a. per yard the whole dress weighing on
spund, and costing $40 Now the beautiful specific
duty tariff Of 1912, which the federal wings sa,
must not pc changed taxes the 81 SO dress of the me
chanic just as much as the $50 dress of the banker
or manufacturer As with silk, so Is il with many
other articles under the tariff Of 1912. And yet &C
cording TO our federal whig paDic-makers, the Law
operating thus unjusily and unrighteously, Should
remain "as it isl" The true doetrine--the homes
democratic doetrine--is that men should contribute
to the support Of government according To thel
ability; but this speeihe-duty tariff Of 1912, 10 such
cases that have cited, compes the poor man tc
pay as much as the rich Can, ought such law &c
remain Unchanged
What says Henry Clay on this subject Of &C
valorem and specific dutiesS We mean Henry Clay
the great idol Of federal whgery. He has spoken
and spoken, too, most decidedly against the very po
sitions now assumed by our federal wing panic-ma-
kers, and we now proceed to his words, uttered moi
in Of his presidency seeking letters, Of which
he has written many and contradictory ones, but in
the United States Senate, under all the responsible
ties Of a senator. On the 18th Of February, 1912
he offered series Of resolutions the subject oil
the tariff, and for which the wing senators subse-
quently voted. The 4th resolution read as follows
"hssOIpsd, That in the adjustment Of a tariff TO
raise amount Of twenty.sx millions Of revenue,
the principles Of the compromise act generally should
be adhered TO; and that, especially a maximum rate
Of ad palortm duties should be established from tuheh
there ought 10 be as Hnis departure as possible"
But Mr. Clay did not stop here. On the LIST OF
March, l642, he called up his resolutions, and ad-
dressed the Senate at considerable length IN support
OF them. That speech appears in the National In.
tegencer Of the 9th Of March, and from it we take
couple Of extracts on the subject Of specific and
ad valorem duties
Compare the difference between specific and ad
valOrsm systems Of duties, and maintain that the
latter is justly entitled TO the preference. The one
principle declares the duty paid shall be upon the
real value Of the article taxed; the specific principle
imposes an equal duty on articles greatly unequal
in value. Coffee, for example, land il is an article
which always suggests itself to my thoughb,) is
one of the articles on which specific duty has been
levied. Now, il is perfectly we'll known that the
Mocha coffee is worth at least twice much the
coffee Of ST. Domingo or Cuba, yet both pay the
same duty. The tax has respect TO the value
but Ia arbitrarily levied on all articles of specific
kind alike, however various and unequal may be
their value. say that in theory, and according 10
spy sound principle ejusties, the ad valorem princi
pie oftaxation Is entitled to the preference"
again What has been the fact from the origin
Of the government until now' The ARTICLES from
which the greatest amount Of revenue has been
diawn-such woollens, linens, silks cottons wor-
steds, and few others--hsve all been taxed on the
ad valorem principle, and there has been no diff
Guilty in the operation. | believe, upon the whole,
THAT IT Is THE BEST MODE. | believe that if we
adopt fixed rate ad valorem, wherever it can be
done, the revenue will be subjected TO FEWER
FRAUDS THAN THE INJUSTICE AMI FRAUDS INCIDENT
TO SPECIFIC DUTIES. One Of the most prolific sour
ofthe violation Of our revenue laws has BEEN as
uhrAtr tha All r..
finer quality and higher value admitted under the
lower rate Of duty required for those Of lower
value. The honorable gentleman from New Hamp-
shire, (Mr. Woodbury. and the honorable senator
from New York, (Mr Wright,) both well know
this. But If the duty was laid ad valorem there
could be motive for such effort, and the fraud
in its present form, would have place"
Here we have Henry Clay directly at issue with
the federal wing panic-makers. He advocates
strongly the main features Of the tariff bill which
has passed the House; and we have no evidence
that he has ever changed his sentiments, on this
point, since this speech was made. Ii should also
be borne in mind that the wing senaters--the whig
party Of lS42-sustained the views which their
leader then expressed. And yet the I'D valorem
principle which, IN 1912, was represented by Hen
ry Clay and his fellow wing senators, as "entitled
to the preference" over the specific principle, SAC
cording to every sound principle of justice" is now
seized upon and denounced by federal wing presses
and politicians, for the purpose Of raising panic
and making little political capital. Was there ever
more garng Inconsistency, more barefaced dishon-
esty' Yet such is modern whigery, as exhibited by
its presses and leaders!
.,' AID vALoREM DUTIES.
The federal wing panic-makers profess to enter
tain great fear that to enact tariff law with ad va
loren duties, as is the one now before Congress-
would be to open the door to extensive frauds; and
their ciamor on this subject is one of the means
used by them to defeat any change or modification
Of the tariff of 1912 In another article in the pres
ent number Of our paper, we have quoted Henry
Clay, as authority against specific Duties and in
favor of those very ad valorem duties the ground
that the latter better calculated to prevent fraud
than the former, and besides are more just But
there facts developed in the history of our rev.
enue laws, which triumphantly explode the doc
trine for which our panic-makers now contend
ing; and if any Of our readers meet with one of
these panic gentry, we hope he will put these right
at him, for they are unanswerable, and worth more
than any panic-maker's naked assertion.
The Journal of Commerce publishes a table,
showing that in IS years from 1890 to 1S45) there
were imported under ad vaorem duties lob $751;
COS dollars and under specific duties only 532l9,
722 dollars--or excess Of ad vaorem speci-
fc duties of 365, 1888 dollars; more than so per
cent Another strange fact appears: under every
protective tariff since 1914, viz the tariffs of 1916
1924, 1882, 1883, and 1912, more goods have paid
ad valorem than specific duties. In 1914, nearly
twenty-one millions more goods paid ad valorem
than specific duties.
Has not the present favorite argument about the
vast amout of frauds under the ad valorem duties,
been always applicable for the last twenty-five years.
And why should we hear now for the first time, if
it be not brought forward to defeat any reduction Of
the tariff, and save heavy dvidendsi 1t is as easy
to swear to false invoices articles paying ad
loren duties under the tariff of lS42, as it will be
undera new bill why, then, do not the high pro-
tectioniss reform this great source of fraud, for
which they profess SO holy horor' If there was
no danger of fraud under the tariff Of 1912, there
ought certainly to be none under the proposed
tariff, which is more closely hedged around with
guards.
Another singular fact is connected with the argu-
ment against ad valorem duties. Under the tariff of
ls42 fine cottons, bringing in revenue Of FIVE mil
llons) large class of fabrics made of silk mixed
with cotton and wool linens, and cassimeres, all pay
an ad valorem duty. Now, if any article is exposed
to fraud, all these fabrics are so exposed, because
their value cannot be known without examinations