The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-15
Year ending sist Of De.
cenibsr.

Aggregate amount Of duties taken off in twelve
years, sass, 062, SAL 80.
| This statement shows the operation Of The eou.-
promise ba and the slight changes rode in the rev.
enue laws jost before 10 passed. The casual OBJ
server OF negligent politician declares one moment
| that under the operation of the compromise bill
there was prompt reelection OF duties; or else he
lakes the other alternative, and insists that the bill
greatly reduced tho rates that il thereby defeated
| the collection OF an adequate revenue. The latter
presents this view Of its effect prove that 20 per
cent. duties would not bring sufficient income for
the expenses OF government, while the former as.
serts there little reduction all after 1896
or 1888, and then the reductions ruinous Both
Of these views are erroneous! No one will contend
that total repeal Of many duties is not reduction
Then the immense amount by which the free list
was Increased was clearly made by adding the vast
number Of articles upon which the duty had been
remir,ed Besides, the sudden dminution of the sg-
gregae amount OF revenue received into the treas
ury, and the great increase in the mportations de-
monstrato'that the duty must have been greatly re-
daeed after the passage Of the compromise bill
Upon no other state Of facts any one explain why
the amount of revenue paid into the treasury an
nualy, from 1888 TO 1888 should fall greatly under
what was Annually paid into the treasury the same
number Of years Just preccdingi when, after 1888
the imports were greatly increased above what they
were for an equal number Of years Immediately
before that time. Nor Is the other position any
tensbe, for the free list increased and the tax
able base Of mportations to that extent dimin.
ished. OF course IL you impose duty Of 90 per
cent. upon only SOS, l26, l52--whch was the
amount Of imports paying duty in 1884, while
the imports that year free Of duty amounted
TO the enormous sum Of s69, 393 ls0-you
win not collect as much revenue as you were
collecting when the tarabi base OF the impouations
embraced nins-ienihs Of the imports under an ave-
rage duty Of thrty-four per cent But this mode Of
condemning fair income from revenue tariff Of
low rates Of duty is absurd. We propose to lay a
revenue duty nine fenths Of the imported goods.
Suppose we place the imports at one hundred and
thirty or one hundred and forty millions per annum,
and apply the rates of duty proposed in the
bill under discussion 10 such import trade can
any candid man question but that the government
would receive ample revenue'
II was the great increase in the free list that caused
the compromise bill to bring in SO small amount
Of revenue. Strange il may seem, il appears
from Doc. No Of the first session OF the 9th Con-
gress that the average amount OF enods imported
free Of duty for seven years from 1884 to 1870, was
per annum, 81, 72S, 3l2; while, by the same docu-
meat il is shown. that for the same length of time
that is, from 1884 TO l640--the average annual
amount OF imports paying duty was only SIS, 746,-
457, So we were deriving what col
eced during that tme from less than one-ha Of our
imports. '1a
But propose to show that the great reduction OF
duty under the compromise bill was not confined to
articles of luxury, and that the taxes reduced
greatly upon many Of the leading necesssTes of life
"A statement from tables prepared al the Treasury d..
partnsnl, sho,oing the amount Of duties remiled on
the ten Joo,cing articles from 1884 10 1888, inelu-