The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-09-09
THE TWO TARIFFS, AND THE CoMPAR
ALIVE STATEMENT.

Wehave no wish to handy harsh epthets, either
with the Alexandria Gazette, or the Baltimore
Patriot, in relation to this subject. With perth
nacity which we cannot understand, the Patriot
still denies that the practical operation" Of the
tariff Of 1912, is shown by statement Of the whole
amount Of importations under it, and Of the whole
amount Of duties actually paid upon those inPorta-
tons, during the year ls45. five were not tired of
the subject we should be glad to know what, in the
Patriots view, is the practical operation" Of
tariff. For our own part, we have always sup
posed that such practical operation" was to be
looked for in the custom house returns and in state
ments based upon them, and drawn in exact con-
formity with them.
The duty Of sixty cents per gallon, levied by the
act of ls42, Madeira wines, could not be
collected, because Judge Bib, the Secretary
of the Treasury, acting under the very President
who had signed the law, decided that duty to be in
violation of our limited reciprocity treaty with Por
tusal. This construction Of the act of l642, is
doubtless correct. But that is not the point in ques
ton. The true point is, that this construction was
o6eial-was the act Of the very administration which
made the tariff Of IS42 its leading measure-and
was therefore, in the utmost strictness Of speech,
part of the practical operation" of that law. The
law of IS42, then, as construed and executed by
those who made it, and whose duty it to construe
and execute it, did in fact collect, during the year
ls45, on 989l8 gallons of Madeira wine, costing
Sal ,507, duty amounting to Alb IS. just that
the fact shown by the revenue returns And from
that fact results another, just as indisputabe, viz
that the Madeira wine imported during the year lS45,
did, under the practical operation" of the tariff of
ls42, pay a duty amounting to 5.24l0O per cent.
ad valorem.
This fact is 80 stated in the comparative state
ment, and if this statement in any respect diff
ferent it would be inaccurate Yet the Patriot has
the face to repeat "that this comparative statement
is incorrect, and will misead those who rely on it."
To prepe this assertion the Patriot reasons as fol-
lows
"Take the case of Madeira wine. This compare
tive statement states, and truly, that the tariff Of
1912 levied on it specific duty Of sixty cents per
gallon. Ia a second column it pretends to reduce
this specific duty to an equivalent ad vaorem,' and
puts that down at 524 per cent And in a third
column it states that the ad vaorem duty, under the
tariff Of 1886, is 40 per cent. X
mo explanation is given by note otherwise, to
pearson its face. Every person reading it. and con-
fding in it, would suppose that the .duty was
very much higher under the tariff Of 1916 than
1t was under that of 1842. No other conclusion
could be drawn from the figures of the comparative
statement And yet this is all incorrect.
"There were reported in 1845, according to the
custom-house returns. 9s,9l8 gallons of Madeira
wine. This, at sixty cents q gallon, would give
duty of s59, $50 80; the average value is Sl4i SOY
and therefore the specific duty of 60 cents gallon
under the tariff of lS42 reduced to equivalent ad
valorem, would be "a per cent, or "a per cent
higher than the duty under the act Of 1886.
"But, as we stated on Friday, the duty put upon
Madeira wine by the act of 1912 was abolished by
ridiculous decision Of Mr. Bbb which MIR. Walker
has continued on the ground that Madeira being
/ lohite wine (not red WINE, inadvertently
stately was to be admitted, under the treaty with
Portugal, at the same rate Of duty as cheap white
wines Of other countries-hat is, u cents gallon
because the color made il similar
"The result Of this treasury decision was to reduce
the duty from SIS, $50 80, ,Ohich the act Of ls42
tsped to 81 ,4lS 3d. and it is on this latter that
| the ad valorem duty is calculated, and not as the
comparative statement would have the people be-
lieve, on the specific duty Of 60 cents gallon %
Il The Alexandria Gazette adopts the same view, as
| follows: .r.-s ..
| There is not one single word in any part Of this
Comparative statement about the treaty with Por-
tugal, or the fact Of Madeira wine imported from
Portugal or its dominions, paying duty under that
treaty Of y cents per gallon. IL such was the fact
why did not the Secretary Of the Treasury append
note to his statement, to let the people know il Z
Was because he designed to produce the impress
sion that the wing tariff Of 1S42, (instead OF the
treaty with Portugal,) levied duty on the iurry
OF Madeira wine Of only 5.24 per cent, while his
own beautiful offspring, the tariff Of 1916, increased
this tax upon the rich to 40 per cent"
Will it be believed now, in spite Of these reckless
and most extraordinary assertions, that the compar
alive statement does, in fact, show upon its
face, and even in its tite and in the explanation at
ached to its title, precisely the method adopted by
Aihe Treasury Department to obtain the results
which the table embodes We give the title of the
statement at length, with the explanation attached
to il;
"A comparative statement, showing the duties