The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1846-07-09

lies TO increase the revenuel" Can aoy
thing be more absurd-urged in the face
OF the fact, proved by every official report
on the finances from the foundation OF the
Government, that the revenue has always
gone IN and down as the tariff has gone
up or gone down? Yet we are told, "re'
dace the duties 10 increase the revenue" "
Are not duties the source OF revenue; and
would it not be just as sensible to say Gre
duce the revenue 10 increase the revenue -
Duties and revenue are convertible terms.
You want twenty-five millions from the
tarif-that sum must be raised, no matter
how you impose the duties; and why not
so arrange them as TO protect and sustain
your own national industry, thus making
taxation itself prolific of benefits and bles-
sings to the people9
On the subject Of the revenue, he would
venture to predict that if the system of
measures recommended BY the Secretary
the reduction OF the tariff, the change
from specific 10 ad valorem duties, the SUBJ
treasury, and warehousing system were
adopted--the revenue next year will not
be half the amount it will be this year.
Mark the prediction, "not half"
Who could deny the fact that with the
raising of the tariff the revenue increased
and with its diminution the revenue fell
of, till at last under the 20 per cent, which
the Secretary considered the beau IDEAL
the very perfection of revenue system
the net revenue sank down TO less than
thirteen millions? There was his theory
and there, alongside it, stood his proof;
and his proof utterly subverted his theory.
Did it prove that reducing duties 20 per
cent raised the revenue to lis highest
poinl1 Just the reverse. 1t reduced it TO
the very lowest point Of depression. While
his theory said that 30 per cent would
give the "highest," his proof showed that
il gave the "lowest."
And was not this pretty time 10 select
for the reduction Of duties? Now, when
we had just entered into a war, whose du-
ration no man could predict or calculate?
When we went 10 war in 1912 we doubs
led the duties, now it was proposed 10 cut
them down one,half! What consum>
mate proof of political wisdom and fnan-
cial ability was here exhibited
There was another thing OF which the |
tariff was an index, and that was the
public prosperity. When The people were
poor they could not afford to consume lux
uries; imports fell off, and down went The
revenue. Bu. when duties were high s. |
domestic competition was excited, agricul-
ture having abundant markets, & laborers |
full and profitable employment, the peo
pie became prosperous; they lived in COM
fort they could afford to pay for fine
goods and luxuries-and up went the rev.
tnue. Reduce the tariff, break up Amer
lean industry, and you clothed the peo-
pie in rags, and your treasury became
bankrupt The national revenue and the
national prosperity went up and down to-
gether, and were always concident with
nationa protection.
Mr.. SIS system was this: Select the ar>
aces you can manufacture 10 the full ex-
tent OF our own wants, then, in the lam
guage of Thomas Jefferson, "impose on
them duties lighter at first, and afterwards
heavier and heavier as the channels of
supply were opened This was Jeffer~
sons plan; the reverse of modern demo-
cratic "free trade" Next Mr.. S. went
for evying the highest rates of duty on
abe luxuries of the rich, and not Oh the
necessaries of the poor. Encourage A.
merican manufactures, and while on The
one hand the poor man found plenty
Of employment, on the other he got his ;
goods cheap. He could clothe himself {
decently for mere trife. He wanted
no foreign commodities but his tea and
coffee, and they were free, and should re-
main free. The poor man could now (
buy cloth for full suit from head to foot {
for less than one dollar of substantial A (
merican manufacture. He had himself (
worn in this hall garment of this same
goods, at 10 cents per yard, and 1t was so
much admired that more than a dozen
members had applied for similar garments,
and they had been supplied 10 Senators &
others; yet we are told the tariff taxes are
opp-essors Of the poor. Put high reeves
nue. duties on wines, on brandies, on laces {
and on silks, eand jewelry, on all that
which the rich alone consumed and which
the poor man did not want. Take OFT the
duties from the poor mans neecssares q
give him high wages for his work.
That was the way to dffuse happiness e. {
prosperity among the great body of the {
people. Tha! was good sound democrat {
ic policy. He was for liking up the poor. {
lie was for "levelling upward" for in
creasing the domestic comfort of our own t
aboring popuIation--the true democracy c
of the country. The rich could pay, and
ought 10 be made to pay, and they shout q
pay; the poor man could not, and shon ID
mot, with his consent. Mr.. S. went Tor g
the system which elevated the poor man
in the scale Of society; that promoted e.