The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1846-08-15

tllS or advantage WIN ulSt
be Increased; but lift be raised TO thirty on,
per cent, aud il is found that the revenue
produced at that rate is less than at thirty pei
cent, il ceases to be arevenue duiy The pre-
else point in the ascending scale of duties a
which it is ascertained from experience tina
the revenue is greatest, is the maximum rate
Of duty which can he laid for the bona fidt
purpose Of collecting moncyfor the support
OF government, To raise the duties higher
than that point, and thereby diminish the
amount collected, is to levy them for pro-
tectoR merely and not for revenue. As long
then, as Congress may gradually increase the
rate ofduty on given article, aud the reve.
uue is increased by,such increase of duty
they are within the revenue standard. When
they go beyond thar point, and ms they i'll
crease the duties the revenue is diminished
Or destroyed, the act ceases 70 have for its OBJ
Jec' the raising of money to support Govern
ment, but is for protection merely"
This IL the same principle stated and more
elaborated by the Secretary, and they both
hold, that any duty which exceeds what is
thus defined ms the revenue standard, is not
only impolitic, bur actually unconstitutional.
AS the President says it is important 10 an
derstdnd distinctly what is meant by The rere-
me STANDARD, which must never he exceeded,
and as | probably cannot better dedgle his
meaning than he docs himself, Twill now en-
deavor TO present it in n practical and sim
pie case. We will suppose that all the shoes
worn IN this country We're made in Europe
aud imported here, aud Congress was TO i'm
pose on them duty OF ten cents per pair,
aud suppose this were to produce one mil
hon dollars reFcuue, this would clearly he Il
ferenue dlay. Ii, needing more money, Con-
gress were TO impose on them a duty of fit-
teen cents per pair, aud as many were still
Imported, it would bring into the Treasury
Que million and half of revenue. This is
clearly within the reUenue standard, because
increasing the duty increased the revenue
Let MS now suppose, some one should sug-
gest, that this course held MS entirely DEEPEN
dent on foreign supply for shoes, and, it war
took place, we should he harefooted and be-
sides, il was drawing off the money which
only was taken for the shoes, aud therefore
proposed 10 lay Il duly OF twenty cents per
pair on the imported shoes, to encourage
Their manufacture here. Suppose that duty
laid, and tIereupon our people began to make
shoes, and carried them into our markets.
without duty, and there meets the foreigner
with his shoes, on which lie has paid twenty
cents, and undersel him. The foreigner
iheh reduces his price, because he would ra-
tier give up part of the great profits he had
before made than tO lose the market: and so,
hetWeen the Two, our people would buy
shoes az about Il fair price. Suppose that.
under this law, the American supplies huf
and the foreigner hall, what is the effect on
HE revenue? Most obviously il is this:
The revenue received is the sumo it was I'M
Ter DEFY m.len cents per pair; for it h1F
Is many are imported at twenty cents rs there
were at tea cents, the whole amount received
4 Inn l.
here Is NOT so much revenue realized MS
here was when the duty was fifteen CENTS,
lud therefore the hcenty cent duty WIS above
what is now called the rerenue standard, for 1t
the revenue, and therefore, as is
Iow WAS unconstitutional, aud it would he the
immediate duty of Congress to re peal il, and
nus put stop 10 the making OF shoes in
america. ... . .T.... H.r
Ihls is true and practical application of
he prnclpIe on winch the hill is formed, and
WI apply, with the same force, to every
AMERICAN artisan and every American pro-
luction. Nor is it attanpted to he disguised
~ The Secretary. 1t follows. then, as a clear
,"rollary, that any thing which can, by the
'nor and suffering population of Europe, he
Produced or made at less price Than by our
'Wn people, will and must aupply our market,
ma dram Oft our money, until Our people
VII I'VE as poor, and produce as cheap, and
Nc reduced TO the same degree of degreda-
ion, as the masses in Europe.
How can the President in truth say, that
the rate of duty exceeds the reUe-
ne Sta'tarrd, as now defined, that is, whenev-
II the rate Of duty is so high that thereby
here is less revenue than when AT lower rate,
hen it becomes a duty for protection naerely.-
such an expression makes the impression
hat whenever protection begins revenue
eases. This is not so, as ! have already |
hown; and our presenttariff, which is pro-
ectlve tariff, still raises a reasonable amount
It revenue How then can it be in truth and |
audor said, that such discrimination for |
protection destroys the tariff as reUenue nted- |
l1e, and makes it law for protection merclY. |
That can only be, with truth and candor said |
# n law laying a duty so high as to amount
o entire prohibition. That would indeed be |
or protection merely.
uhe Secretary, in his report, frequently
lses the term, g the io,OeSt amount of duty
which will produce the largest amount of rev. |
nue." Thus he says: "2d. That no duty
,e imposed on any article above the lo,ceSt
ute which will yield the largest amount of
evenlie." Now, it must be perfectly obvious,
IN u moments reflection, that there can be
,ut one point which can raise the largest a
mount of revenue, 1t is that rate of duty
which is the highest that can be laid, and yet
Keep the whole supply to be imported. This
S the highest point in the reyenue stondard.-
If that rate is exceeded, it at once diminish
IS the revenue because the American sup
lilies some, the importation is diminished.
md SO the revenue is lessened. Therefore,
he highest rate of duty which will raise the
a1gea amount of revenue, and the lo,oest rate
IF duty which will raise the largest amount of
'evenue, are precisely The same fling for it
must be that point which will raise most
Therefore, the expression io,ceet rate Of duty,
which is so often repeated in the report is