The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-20


no longer wanted. new modification Of the rev.
ehue system would soon he necessary 10 meet this
new state of the financial affairs of the coun-
try. In this modification Of the duties the
advocates OF the protecting system con'em-
plated reduction Of the duties principally on those
articles which had not been, or could not be- pro.
duced IN this country, while IT'S opposeTs on the
other hand, insisted on an abandonment Of the sys,
tenn tself by making the duties on all imports about
equal With view of obtaining Information and
enllghtening the public mind this great and IN
terestng subject, two conventions were held ia the
summer and fall Of 1881; one in the city ofPhadel-
pha, called the aHtl.tarif free trade convention
the other at the city Of New York, called the tariff
convention. Both were composed Of gentlemen dis
tnguished for talents and experiences and their adj
dresses TO the people of the United States, and
MORALS TO Congress, or as they may called, essays
expressive oftheir different views Of the questions
of political economy then Rgtated, were drawn up
with no ordinary care and ability, and must always
take high rank among the State papers Of that Pc
rod Under the influence Of these conventions
Congress, after much debate, proceeded to modify
the preceding TARIFF by an act Of the l4th of July
1882, TO take effect after the LIST of March, 1888
II was called the compromise act; and the tariff
decreasing scale "-Pikinss Statistics Of the United
States.
This tariff was not based upon sound fiscal princi-
pies. IL bluadsring compromise between monopoly
and free trade. For the time, however, il removed
all the perpeXing and formidable difficulties Of null
fyng the Union. But, when its maximum duties
were TO come into operation, policy was
adopted in 1912, carried by the spirit ofpary, much
more than by the influence Of the manufacturers.
The result was the monstrous tariff Of that year,
printed IN previous part of this work.
A new tariff was prepared in 1874, upon great
y diminished scale, by the Committee of Ways and
Means, of which Mr. Mckay was chairman. The
report which accompanied it was drawn up with
great cleaness and ability. IL dwes forcibly on the
evils to all classes Of frequent changes in the tariff
as well as TO the revenue, and reyerts to the tariff
Of 1928 which even the advocates Of the manufac.
turing interests styled the "bill determinations"
TIL committee consider the lowest possible duty
necessarily protective, to its extent, though il may
be imposed with the single view TO revenue, and
may be revenue duty in the strictest sense of
those terms Commencing at this point, they think
that the duty upon any given article should be
sldered, and is properly called revenue duty, so
long as an increase OF the rate win increase the
amount of revenue derived from the importation of
the article. This conclusion is based upon the sim
pie fact, that up to this point, the way increase
The revenue from the given article is to raise the
rate Of duty; and, although the degree of protection
afforded by the duty is increased with the increase
OF the rate yet that Is an incident and unavoda-
BILE incident, and cannot change the nature and char
acter OF the duty, as duty to raise to increase
enue. Pass that point, and raise the of duty so
high that its prohibitory action diminishes the
amount Of revenue collected under it, and its char
IL
increased, while the revenue il yields is diminished
thus giving protection its chief fruit and revenue
as the incident. Continue to raise the rate until
the prohbltory action of the duty becomes perfect
all mportatlons of the article cease and no revenue
is realized from the duty. Then, certainly, it can
not be considered called revenue duty and its
exclusive object must be protection. Ii must be-
therefore, protective duty in the strict sense of the
term; and, in the opinion Of the committee, it is
clearly entitled to that appellaton from the point
where Its prohlbtory became paramount TO IFS reve-
powers and its increased rate ceases to increase
the amount Of revenue collected under il. This
| conclusion is founded upon the equally simple fact
that at this elevation, the way to increase the reve-
nue. is to diminish the rate ofduty. The power to
lay and collect duties has been carried beyond it's
object of obtaining revenue to pay the debts and
provide for the common defence and general wei
fare of the United States;' and a reduction Of the
rate Of the duty only will the exercise of the
power to that object. The understanding of this
committee, therefore, is that while every duty is
necessarily protective 10 its extent, yet every duty
is to be considered, and is properly denomnated,
revenue duty, the rate of which yields the largest
amount of revenue from the Importation of the arti-
Gle upon which it is imposed, the of which is
below that point, SO that an increase of the rate
would produce an increase ofthe revenue; and that
every duty is to be considered, and is properly de-
nominated, protective duty, the rate Of which is 30
high as to diminish the amount of revenue derived
from the importaions Of the article upon which il
is imposed, and the rate of which requires 10 be re-
duced to increase the revenue. And when n given
amount of revenue is desired to be raised upon any
gwen article ofimportation, the committee regard
the lowest rate Of duty which will effect the result
as the true and legitimate revenue duty
"lhis will show what description of law the
committee waud denominate revenue, and what a
protective tariff; and to what extent they would
give the one character the other to any given law
The protection afflrded under revenue tariff thus
defined WODu nd
the revenue be required, they cannot see that the
consequent protection can be subject of grievance
or complaint on the part Of any interest. The pro-
lection afforded by protective tariff, according to
the same definition, is direct and positive; operates
to diminish or destroy the revenues and constitutes
as the committee believe an exercise of the power
to lay and collect duties eRtrey ndefensbe in prin-
cpe and policy, and often furnishing broad ground
for just complaint. The terms perfect protection
the committee understand to be synonymous with
perfect prohibitions and, therefore, entirely destruc-
tive OF all revenue, because prohbitory of all impor-
tations. {
"The terms free trade in their broad sense, the
committee understand to be equally inconsistent with
the idea ofa revenue from imports, because they
suppose that trade, which is perfectly free cannot
be burdened with any duties not imposed to furnish
facilities TO itself In this sense, they are assured
the phrase is understood in some portions of the
country, when used in connexion with legislation of
this descriptions and the advocates of a system of
iiee uaue are supposed 10 DE also advocates of
change OF one system OF revenue from duties on i'm
ports to internal taxation, direct and Indirect The
committee believe that, if any hold these views,
much the largest class of those who call themselves
friends OF free trade do not attach to the terms any
such extent, and only intend to be understood, by
the free trade they advocate, so much freedom of
trade as may be enjoyed under system of duties
arranged with sole reference to supply of the pub
lie treasury, and the rates established as low as the
economical wants of that treasury will allow"
Alter quoting largely from the ant-tariff speeches
OF Mr. McDuflie and Mr.. Benton, Mr. Macgregor
thus proceeds:
The tariff bill, prepared by the Committee of
ways and Means, was rejected, and the commercial
tariff OF England was usual urged as a defence of
the tarh OF 1912, by the Committee on Manufac-
lures We believe however, that sound fiscal and
commercial views will prevail in the United States
ana that liberal commercial system will be estab-
Ished The recent report (Dec IS45l of Mr.,
Walker, the Secretary Of the Treasury, fsee Finan