New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-07-01
The Tariff Question cow ut issue In
GonEre.H.

decisive vote on Inc seVerA pruposItlcns before H.
the fundamental one being the bill reported from
the Committee Of Ways and Means by Gen. McKay
Of n c. which proposes general reduction of d.
ties on The npored articles which rival ,hose pro
duced in on. own country and corresponding in
crease on many which being excasiy ely imported,
and often used IN the production Of domestic fabrics
it has been deemed sound policy to admi: at lo<
duty. and of;en without duty. To Gen. McEsy's
bill there are sondry propositions OF amendment
the most important being tina, submitted oy Af
Hungerford of this State, who proposes TO con
,inue very considerable Protection to the pFoou
ducers OF Iron (unnanufacturedJ Sugar Cosi anu
Salt. while subjecting every Thing else 10 1t" g e4I
o1 roloyen duties. II is hardly necessary 70 aod
,bs, ,,is l., TO "a even more Objectionable
Than Gen, McKay's. If the policy OF Protection IS
70 be overthrown in It's general application there
can be no proprety, justice IN continuing oy
martial provisions intended 10 prepate ioca! inter
eats The policy is plainly either right or wrong
r. ,iobt il should be maintained in lis integrity Il
wrong. il should be discarded altogether. hr Hun
gerfords bill appears to be characterized only by lis
entire disregard alike Of principle and policy for
surely If there be any manufactures which may be
ey pecicU 10 HOUrIsU ulDSl ~ oAa1 49, '@'N'N'
lies i; mus, be those which have definite, ascer-
,ainable value, and which, being OF considerable
bulk are mca.urably protected by the cost CT trans
pora,ion If any class of articles might be subject
ed without peril al raiorsm duties 1t is that very
class which Mr. Hungerford would guard y specific
mposts 10 violation Of the general principle OF his
bill.
And here, lei US remark, is the worst feature OF
Gen. McKays bill-ihe utter abrogeuon OF Specific
duties and the subsection Of the Industry, Com
rnerce aud Revenue Of the Country 10 the inevi,a'
bic, iiimi,abIe frauds OF Qd Uatorem duties. The
present Tariff renders duties specific so far as they
can be- either by directly laying much per pound,
per yard, per gallon, or per ton, or by the Minimum
principle Of estimating each square yard OF given
fabric 10 have cos. not less than certain sum. All
this is reversed by Gen. McKay's bill Give Us the
rates of duty he imposes 10 specific form, 30 that
where twenty-five per cent. is charged go much VIII
actually be collected and not ten fifteen twenty
per cen, and mos, branches OF protected Industry
could stand it. But twenty-five per cent duty on
cloths or other fabrics, when the importers invoice
substantially fixes the valuation, is cheat delu-
sion Two cents a yard on plain Couons and four
on Printed or Coored would mean something
amount to something; while twenty per cent on
the same goods is any thing or noih!ng, as the i'm
uorter's conscience or interest shall deierIn;ne-
Twenty per cent. made specific woald be better
than thirty per cent. dd r0L0rem-better both for
the Governmen, and the Country.
The whole action of the dominant party on this
subject. alike through the Treasury Department and
in Congress- has evinced gross ignorance OF facts
and an utter reckessness Of principe-even OF their
own II the fundamental doctrines Of Mr.. Walkers
Repor, be sound then any Tar!g at ALL especially
on articles which come in competition with Ameri-
can products is mistaken unequal. perniciOus. AL
the speeches in Congress on that eide have run in
the same channel. If they demonstrate any thing,
il is that the duties on Iron Coal Sugar. CottonR,
Wcolens. Silks &c should be, not reduced but
abolished. If there be shadow Of soundness in
the logic OF Loco Focoism from first to last, then
even twenty per cent. duty ON these articles would
tax the consuming classes three dollars for every one
ii puts into the Treasury. What mean these men,
therefore in imposing duties OF twenty. twenty-five
and thirty per cent? Do they hold il right that the
lords o! the loom should be enabled by act of Con
gress 10 charge go much more than they ought for
every dollars worth of their products Why do
they not propose 10 abolish the Tariff altogether,
and supper, the Government by direct takes on
Property or Incomel Why, indeed, but because
they are perfectly aware That their premises are
sound and their arguments fal!acious-cslcuated
only 10 deceive and cheat the poor and the ignorant
into convictions which The contrivers know be de-
lusive
What Congress may do cannot with any
1ict 70 cnpiicnt ibnrn is @ do.
cided majority in each House who feel that the
Tariff ought not to be touched At this time, unless
TO impose Revenue duties articles now free Yet
the necessities of the Party pressng-its
humlialing position with regard TO Oregon has i'm
posed it so palpable consraint 10 do something
of decided character and not admi, outright the
utterly fraudulent character of the pretences and
professions thereby it attained power-that we have
generally inclined TO believe that ii would pass
some sort of Tariff break down. We have sup.
posed that with the exception ofsome twenty-five
thirty Members from Pennsylvania, New York and
s,rasecrs from other States, they could dril in the
Party 10 VOC for any bill that might obtain ma
jority i'll caucus. And now, if this apprehension
prove mistaken it will simply indicate 10 our mind
that there is some serious ieud In The ranks Of the
msJoriiy which all The enormous patronage and des
polic power OF Polk cannot smother Once through
the House, which VIC have supposed bill like Nc.
Hays might be by Ave TO ten majority. we do no,
see bow ii IS TO be stopped in the Senate The
Wings with the two Pennsy lvanans together make
two less than ma ority Of the Senate and whence
another vote for Protection is to be obtained we do
not know. MIR. Allen and Mr.. Benton have been
severaly mentioned as likely cas-, it, but on no
reliable grounds that have been made public. Gen
Csss is al heart friend Of Protection, but Party
overrucs and conslrains him In The last resort we
anticipate that Mr.. Calhoun some OF his friends
will propose compromise, but whether its accept
ance will be preferable, all things considered, 10
the passage OF the House bill, We cannot predict.
Should Congress decide TO break down the pre-.
sen, Protective Tariff and replace il by one based
no defined principle bat embodyiog tumble of
provisions Revenue, Protective and compromises
between the two-we feel that il will have been