The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-31
THE CON FEssloNs OF THE MANUFAC-
TURERS.

IURERS.
We find in the Intellgencer Of this morning a
column Of correspondence in relation to the new
tariff, and to Mr.Webster's proposed amendment of
it, which we deem important and remarkable
enough to be laid al length before readers. The
letters Of the manufacturers and of Mr.. Webster
clearly establish in the first place. that the protee-
tionsts reject the idea of compromise between the
tariff system embodied in the act of 1912, and that
which is maintained in the act of 1916. Messrs.
Chambers and Davis say that Mr. Websters pro-
posed amendment RETAINED all the principles and
all the regulations Of the act of 1912" Mr.. Web
ser himself, in his reply, is equally explicit. He
says this amendment neither attacks nor abandons
the prineipsor the policy Of the act of 1912 On the
contrary, it retains all the principles of that import
ant law, and maintains is tOAOs policy" This state
ment covers the whole ground. The proteeuonists
go for the law Of ls42, principles policy, and all.
The friends of the new tariff think those principles
and that policy Objectionable and unjust; and here
upon issue is joined
What is meant by the advocates Of the tariff OF
ls42, when they speak of its principles and its
policy" They do not its rates Of duty, il APP
pearsi because, while intending to retain all the
principles and policy" of the law, they propose to
change its rates of duty. Now besides these OF
duty the law 1882 presents two other leading and
characteristic features. They are the specific prinei-
pie and the minimum principle-the principle that
is, of taxing, IN some cases. articles according to
their quantity, and not according to their value, and
the principle Of aixng, in other cases, false rallt
to article by law, in order thereby to tax it more
heavily. These arc the "prnciples" and the "pol-
icy" 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 wholly self
contradictory. The first principle denies that the
tax should pay any regard to the paiue. The second
principle recognises value the basis Of taxation,
and only claims that the law shall make that value
enormously false, for the purpose Of evying in I'M
derhand way a tax two or three hundred per
cent higher than the country would endure if it
were laid openly. And in support of such prinei-
pies these, the wings willing, they say to 60
before the people! These principles, they claim,
should be permanent in our revenue system! And,
be it observed, that the law of 1912 levies these
specific and minimum duties just where they not
needed The minimums being the greater out
rage upon reason and justice, applied to those
forms of cotton manufacture which need the least pro-
tection while the specific duties laid generally
either upon those articles, equal quantities of which
differ most in palus, silks for example, else
upon that class Of articles whose value can be most
easily northumberland, for example, the va
nous manufactures of iron.
These bunders seem to have been committed in
,u, ~ for ha Of
that act all pretence of right stand as the perma-
nent revenue system Of the country. This unskil-
ful application of specific duties burdens them with
perhaps unnecessary odium. They bad
enough in themselves; but inudicious 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 must discriminate against the poor The
following illustration, which we find in the Journal
of Commerce, puts this in clear light:
| "Take, for instance, the article Of raw sugar A
specific duty of q cents pound, in the tariff Of
| lS42, makes a sugar worth four cents pound pay
precisely the same tax as another quality worth
eight cents pound And, as cheap sugar is gene
rally consumed by the poorer classes and fine
gars by the atuent, it follows, in the supposed
that the poor man pays twice as large tax in pro-
portion TO the value of the article he consumes as
the rich man does; Whereas if they paid in proper
ton to their property respectively, (he usual basis
of taxation) the rich man would pay, perhaps
| hundred times if not thousand, more than the
poor man. The whole system of raising revenue
| by duties on imports, is hard one for the poor
man, since his bodily wants great the rich
mans; and, although poverty compels him to con-
cheaper articles, and perhaps in less quantities
yet, in the most favorable view ofthe case his
for the support Of government out uf gil proper
ton TO his means. IT, in addition to this, he has to
pay as much duty inferior articles his rich
neighbor pays choice qualities of the arti-
cles, the injustice is so fragrant that it is strange any
fair-minded citizen car countenaDce il for moment.
Yet this injustice is inseparable from system of spe-
cifc duties.
"The same thing may he said of the whole system
Of minimums 1t requires that all articles of par
ticular class, not exceeding given value per pound
or per yard shall be valued at that rate and charged
with duty accordingly. For instance, the tariff Of
lS42 requires that all manufactures of cotton, Of
which cotton shall be component part, not dyed,
coored, printed, stained, not exceeding in value
twenty cents per square yard, shall be valued at
twenty cents per square yard, and pay duty of 30
per ceRt. on that valuation. Some descriptions of
cotton manufactures not worth more than five
cents the square yard, we presume, while others
may be worth twenty cents. Now, according to the
minimum principle, the five ccnt cloth, (mosy used
| by persons in moderate crcumstances,) would have
to pay just much duty per yard, as the fine fabric
worth four times as much. Thus, i hundred dol
lars worth Of the fine article paid $50 duty, hun
bred dollars worth Of the coarse article would have
to pay $40. This is the sort Of protection which
the system Of minmums gives to the poor man; the
protection Of paying four times as large tax, in
proportion to the value of what he consumes, as the
rich man; whereas the latter, the score Of prop
erty and means, ought to pay, perhaps, hundred
times as much as the former"
The defence Of this enormous system is, that spe-
cihc duties, and even minimums, are necessary to
apoid frauds. This objection to the new tariff has
bcen for want of better greatly insisted on. But
it is strangely wanting in plausibilty. Much has
been said of false invoices, if the importer had
only alsfy his invoice, and pay under the ad
loren system as little duty he chose. The fact lie,
that the value of the goods taxed is to be settled,
not by the importers invoice, but by competent and
skilful appraisers. They to sppraise the goods
-, ,h.;r ,ctnal noarkef value 4, o,,v NJ.