Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-08-13
From ne Washiagioa Union.


We find in the IntelIigencer of this morning
column of correspondence in relation to the new tariff,
and TO Mr.. Webster's proposed amendment OF II,
which we deem important and remarkable enough to
be laid at length before our readers. The letters of
the manufacturers and of Mr.. Webster clearly estab
lsh in the first place. that the protectionsts reject
the idea Of coBsBrOnise between the tariff system
embodied in the ACT of 1872, and that which is main
tanned in the act Of IS46. Messrs Chambers and
Davis saw that BIr Webster's proposed amend
ment retained all the principles and all the regu-
laions of the act of 1872" Mr.. Webster himself,
IN his reply, is equally explicit. He says this
amendment neither attacks nor abandons the PTfR-
ciples nor the p0'icy of the act of 1912. On the
contrary it retains all the principles of that important
iaw and maintains ats clOle policy" This statement
covers the whole ground. The protectionists go for
the law Of 1912, principles, policy, and all. The
friends of the tariff think those principles and
that policy Objectionable and unjust; and hereupon
issue is Joined.
What is meant BY the advocates of the tariff Of
1912, when they speak of its principles and It's
policy ~ They do not mean its rates of duty, it
appears; because, while intending to retain all the
principles and policy" of the law, they propose to
change its rates of duty Now besides these rates Of
duty the law of 1912 presents two other leading
and Characteristic features. They are the specific
principles and the minimum principle = the prln-
cipe, that is Of taxing, in some eases, articles
according 10 their quantity, and not according to
their value and the principle of affixing in other
NJ
to tax it more heavily These are the principles "
and the policy which the wings seek to retain
IN our revenue system.
Now the first remark which occurs in relation to
these two principles is that they arc wholly sef-cun-
tradictory The first principle denies that the tax
should pay any regard to the rue. The second prin-
cipe recognizes value the basis of taxation, and
only claims that the law shall make that value
nlously false for the purpose of levying in an under
hand way tax two or three hundred per cent higher
than the country would endure if it were laid openly
And in support of such principles these the wings
are willing, they say to go before the people, These
principles, they claim, should be permanent in our
revenue system And, be it observed, that the law
Of 1912 evies these specific and minimum duties Just
where they not needed. The minimuHls, rs being
the greater outrage upon reason and JUSTICE APP
piled to those forms OF cotton manufacture which
need The least proection while the specific duties are
laid generally either upon those articles, equal qpan-
ties of which differ most in rne silks for example,
or else upon that class of articles whose value can be
most easily ascertained-sucb, for example, the
various manufactures of iron. 2eesss
These blnnderS seem to have been committed in the
law d 1912 if for the purpose of taking from that
act all pTetence of right to stand the permanent
system Of the country. This unskilfu appli-
cation of specific duties burdens them with perhaps
unnecessary odium. They arc bad enough in them
selves; but nnudcious arrangement seems to have
taken pains to make them worse in the act of 1912
than they need be. The true charge against such
duties is, that always, and under all circumstances
and when applied most skilfully they diScr
nate against The poor The following. ilustra-
ton, which find in the Journal of Commerce, puts
this in clear light
Take for instance the article Of raw sugar specifc
duty of . cents pouEd, the tariff Of 1912, makes
worth four cents pound pay precisely the
as another quality worth eight cents pound And as cheap
generally consumed by the poorer classes and fine
sugars by the auent follows Supposed
the poor pays twice large in proportion to the
xral4a Of fha rffcIa ha Al
whereas they paid proportion their property respect
ively (the usual basis Of taxation would pay,
perhaps hundred times, not thousand, than the
poor man. The whole system OF raising revenue by duties
imports hard for the poor man, since his bodily
great the rich mans; and, although poverty
compels him TO consume cheaper articles and perhaps in
less quantities, the favorable
his taxes for the support Of government out Of all pro-
portion his IT. in addition this he has pay
much dnty inferior articles his rich neghbor pays
choice qualities Of che articles Injustice is
coantcnance for moment Yet this injustice is
bic from system Of specific duties.
The thing may be said of the whole system of
RinimWas II requires that all articles Of particular class
exeeedpga given value per pound per yard
valued at the rae aud charged with duty accordingly For
instances the tariff of 1872 requires that's all manufactures
Of cotton, Of which cotton shall mponent part
not dyed, coored, printed stained, exceeding
value twenty cents yard shall be valued
y per square yard ply duty of 80 per cent
that valuation Some descriptions of manufactures
are not worth more than five cents the square yard pre-
sumo, while Others maybe worth twenty cents Now
cordng to the minimum principle the FIVE CLOTH
usedoy persons IN moderate circumstances would have
pay just much duty yard the fine fabric worth
times much Thus, if hunffed dollars worth of the
fine article paid $50 duty hundred dollars worth of the
coarse article would have to $780, This is the sort
protection which the system Of mnimums gives poor
1.-THE projections Of paying fur times large tax
proportion to the value Of what he the rich
man; whereas the latter the of properly and
means, ought 10 pay perhaps, hundred times much
the formeT'
The defence of this enormous system is that spe-
ci6c duties, and even minimums, are necessary d
GUoid frauds. This objection TO the new tariff has
been, for want of better, greatly insisted on. But
1t Is strangely wanting in plausibility. Much has
been said OF false invoices, If the importer had
only to falsify his invoice, and pay under the ao
ralorem system as little duty as he chose The fact
u.s. that the value of the goods taxed is to be settled
not by the importers invoice, but by competent and
skiiful appraisers They to appraise the goods
their actual market value IA portS-in New York
or Philadelphia, not at Canton at Manchester In
this point Of view, the appraisers whose business il
will be understand the state of our markets. will give
only such regard to the importers invoice as it NAV
seem entitled TO. They may if they please take tile
invoice Prnaa facia evidence of the actual cost oil
the goods and approximately of their actual worth
IN our markets. But it is only prina tacie evidence
The appraisers must value the goods upon their own
judgment after all. Yet the importer is Obliged tc
present invoices and provision of the new law
goes far towards making this invoice true exponent
of the value of the goods. For the law provides that
If the value placed upon the goods by the importer
on entering them at the custom-house, less by II
per cent than the value at which they are subsequent
ly appraised, then 20 per additional duty upor
the appraised value is to be levied and collected
1t IS to be observed That this 20 per cent additions
duty does not involve all the question of fraud
and 1t may reasonably be supposed that importers will
not readily undersate their invoice prices at such
risk If they do So the 20 per cent additional yalu
he adj ,xyf