Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-07-28
Aggregate amour, of duties taken of in twelve

Aggregate amount Of duties taken of in twelve
years 1898 062, 54l 80.
This statement shows the operation of The Com
promise bill, and the slight changes made IN The
revenue laws Just before il passed. The casual
observer or negligent politician declares n one
moment that under the operation Of The Compro'
mise bill there was no prompt reduction OF dnlies;
or else he takes Inc other alternative, ard insisS
that The bill 50 greatly reduced the rates, that ii
thereby defeated The collection Of an adequate re,
venue. The latter presents this view Of It's
effect 10 prove hal twenty per cent. duties would
M, bring a sufficient income Tor The expenses Of
Government, while the former asserts there was
lille or no reduction till after 1886 or 1898, and
then the reductions were TIiinouS. Both OF these
views are erroneous. Noone will contend that
fofoi repcai Of many duties is mi a reducton.-
Then the immense amount hy which The lrcc list
was increased was clearly made By adding Inc
vast number Of articles upon which The cuy naa
been RENTED Besides, the sudden diminullon
Of The aggregate amount ot revenue received
into The treasury, and the great increase IN
the importation, demonstrate that the amy
must have been orea,lYi.duced soOn after the pas
sage III the Compromise bill. Upon no other
state Of facts can any one explain why lhc
amount OF revenue pail into The Treasury
annually from 1899 to le3S, should fall greatly
under what was annually paid into the Treasury
the same number ol yeats Jnst p:ecednsi wren,
after 1888, The imports were greatly increased
above what they were iol an equal number OF
years Immediately before that time. Nor IS Inc
other position any more tenable, Tor The Tree llst
increased, and the taxable base OF mportalions
was TO that extent diminished. OF course, il you
impose duty oil twenty per cent. upon only s3o,-
l2S l52-which was The amount OF imports pay
ing duty in 1881 while the imports that year ftee
ol duty amounted 10 The enormus sum 81 EDS
393 lo0-you viii not collec as much feceAas
as you were collecting when the tdEabic base oi
The iinponalions embraced nsac-fc3.i6; oi The i'm
ports under an average duty Of ihirly-fnr per
cent. But this mcds 81 conJcmnng lair m
come from revenue tariff OF low rates OF duty i
absurd We propose 10 lay Il revenue duty on
p,gac-ie,lihs al Inc imported Goods. Sufro.s u'a
place The imports At one hundred ana thiry OF
one hundred and forty millions per annum, and
apply the rates OF duty as are proposed in The Dill
under discussion 10 such an import trade, can
any candid man question but That The Govern
nnent would receive ample revenue!
IL was the great increase in the frfc list that
caused the compromise bill to bring in so small
a n amount oil revenue. Strange as II may seem,
il appears from Doc. No. = Of The first session OF
the 9th Congress, that the average amount OIL
goods imported free oil duty for seven years. IRON
1854 10 1870 was, per annun, IL rs Big dollars;
while, by the same document, II Is shown, mat
Tor the same length Of tmc-tnai Is, rom 1881 10
lSi1-,he average annual amount 81 imports par
,as duy was only 5G9, rs, 457. 50 we were tcri-
wing what 1ercnae was collected during lhaltlme,
from less than ono taf 81 om imp"fts.
But propose to show That the great reduction
OF dulv under the compromise bill was not con-
fined 10 articles OF luxury, and that the taxes
were reduced greatly upon many OF The leading
ncccssares Of lite.
A statement from tables prepared at The Treasu-
~ Department, showing The amount Of duties
RENTED on the ten following articles, from
1884 TO 1885, inclusive: