The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-10-14
PoLITIo Al.
From the New Yora Democrat
THE TARIFF.

ticulsr States, this subject may not have been so
prominently presented for consideration, OF SO tho,
roughly discussed as other great questions involved
In the same contest; but IL was leading and distinct
issue in by far the larger portion ofthe Union No
subject Was more deliberately or earnestly canyassed
In this State, either in the public journals IN he
assemblies ofth people. The ground assumed by
the democratic party OF the State was that OF open
and decided opposition 10 the tanh Of lo42. IL
was distinctly taken that OF the wing party IN
favor fthai tariff, or, their own phrase, 'the
tarf as IL isn The act Of 1912 was carried IN
the Senate Of the United States by the votes Of lndi-
ylduals strongly opposed TO some Of It's provisions.
IL was sustained by them on grounds collateral TO
the main purpose OF the aci eonsiderei as measure
Of protection, and also in consideration Of certain
provisions which il contained IN respect 10 the pro-
eeeds Of the public lands. They ayowed their oppo-
stion 10 Of It's prime pal features when they cast
their votes in favor Of IT, and they expressed, at the
same tme their determination 10 seek at the earliest
day, such amendments as they deemed necessary 10
make It Just measure in respect To the great body
of the community. This pledge was redeemed IN
1894 90 far as depended some Of the leading In
diyiduas referred to. A bill was introduced INTO
Congress, providing for important and essential
amendments Of the act OF 1912. This bill Is well
known ia this State MeKay's bill. II was dis
csssed in the popular assemblies Of 1914; and the
contest in this State turned, 10 some degree on the
issue made between IL and the act Of 1912. What
We say "a Familiarity known, or will be readily REQ
objected, by the great mass OF voters. We hazard
nothing in asserting, that the people Of this State
expected, and the democratic party Of the State were
pledged 10 support, such thorough modification OF
the act Of 1912, should strip Of its most obnox-
ious provisions We proceed To show briefly what
these provisions were
Among the most prominent, and the most odious,
was the imposition Of duties cotton goods ae-
cording o. the minimum system Of vaualoni or,
Ia other words, assuming all cotton manufactures
costing less than twenty cents per yard, 10 be OF
the value Of twenty cents, and 50 Of other deserp-
tions-of goods costing less than thirty and thirty
1--WE eenls per square yard. A brief illustration
will show the operation Of this system. The duty
on plain cotton goods 80 per cent Many
Of these goods worth not more H. an six cents
the square yard. But the minimum system ussum-
cd that they were worth twenty cents yard, or
at all events that they should be valued, for the pur
pose Of laxslion at twenty. The duty was, there
fore, 30 per cent. on twenty cents, instead Of 80
per cent. on six cents. duty OF 80 per cent. on
six cents, 10 ono cent and eight mills or fonr-hiths
OF a cent, while similar duty on twenty cents Is
SIX cents A yard Of cotton, therefore, costing six
cents, paid duty Of SIX cents, or 100 per cent,
under this fase mode Of valuation; while at 80 per
cent. on its value, Il would have paid but one cent
and four-hfths On the other hand, yard OF cot
ton actually cosnDg twenty cents, paid only SIX
cents duty, or 80 per cent on It's real value. The
coarse and the fine paid the tax; a system pre-
cisely "A unjust as II would be TO make poor man
pay large a tax on his cottage as the rich man on
his country seat The same partial and deceptive
rule Of valuation and taxation was applied TO color
ed cottons, costing less than thirty and thirty five
cents yard.
The principle OF this continuance was to tax
cheap articles in general use, heavily, and fine
ticles, used chiefly by persons in sfiuent circum-
stances, lightly; thus reversing every equitable rule
of taxation. ....|
The same principle was applied to other articles,
and with greater holiness. The application was
open and direct, not covert and stealthy, like the
device Of the minimtua valuation; Wilton, Saxony,
and treble ingram carpetng, for instance, paid the
same duty, though differing greatly in value. The
cheapest, therefore, was taxed, in proportion TO
its value per square yard than the most costly
The same distinction was taken in respect to many
other articles Of necessity and luxury The former
were heavily burdened, the latter lightly. IL the
fundamental purpose Of the act of l842 had been to
favor the rich and cypress the poor, it could not
have been more efectuay accomplished. We doubt,
indeed, whether Congress actually representing
the wealth Of the country would have had the con-
science or the face TO carry these distinctions to a
greater length, ...." a.....
These inequalities, alike unjust in principle and
oppressive in practice, the democratic party were
pledged TO correct and remove. The pledge has
been redeemed by the act Of Congress just passed.
Whether that act is, in all respects, what il should
be-wheiher 1t may not need amendments in some
of its details-are questions to be considered here
after. Our concern now is with its general pur-
pose a remedial measure. Let us see what it has
accomplished in this respect. ........
1t has, in the first place, abandoned the whole
system Of minimum valuation. Every article sub
ject TO duty pays proportloned to It's real and
not an assumed, value The duty on cotton goods,
for instance, is twenty five per cent. yard of cot.
ton that costs twenty cents pays duty of five cents
while yard of cotton which costs six cents pays
duty of a cent and half, A poor man who buys
ten yards of cotton costing six cents per yard for
the Use OF his family, pays tax Of fifteen cents
while the man in easy circumstances, who buys
an equal quantity costing twenty cents yard,
pays tax of fifty cents. The heavier duty is
on the more costly article, and falls on him who
can Better afford to pay it. All just taxation pro-
ceeds upon this reasonable distinction. We adj
duce these familiar illustrations, because all meas
ures and systems of practical conduct best
understood by tracing them into their minute de-
tails the principle on which they proceed, becomes
more obvious when We see it through its applica-
tons.
The same distinction is designed to be carried into
the whole system. Articles Of luxury, as a general
rule, pay higher duty than articles of necessity
articles in general use. Whether the duty is, in
every instance, precisely what it should be, is not
now the question.
There is one feature in the act, which is new and
which requires to be briefly considered. The ad
valorem principle Of valuation is made universal. All
specific duties abandoned. There is no exception
Articles which, under the act Of 1872 paid certain
sum per yard, bushel or pound, now pay a duty
proportioned to their value. In other words, the
specific are converted into ad valorem duties Under
all fermcr revenue laws, duties have been imposed
in both modes--some specific, some according to
value. This is the first instance, since the founda-
don Of the government in which all duties are re-
uured to be assessed ncn5dinp 10 value and rule
n absolute inhexibity adopted. Whether it's OPP
.S.ii pr.ye o;sssvt sslas,y, IN all cases is ques
can be substituted. II would require too mucH ffhNts
and space to enter into examination Of the argu-
,nenta in favor Of the system, the objections
by which il is opposed. We propose only to look
into its practical effects in respect to single
ticle Of foreign manufacture Carpeting isto pay a
duty of 80 per cent, whether it be ingram, Vene-
tian, Brussels, or Wilton. Ingram carpetng, worth
one dollar the yard, will therefore pay duty of 80
cents the yard. On the other hand, Wilton worth
three dollars yard. will pay duty of 80 cents
yard. The man in ordinary circumstances, who
buys6 fifty dollars worth Of ingram carpeting at dol
lar and thirty cents yard, pays a tax of fifteen
dollars; while the of wealth, who buys the
uuantty of William nj m ree dollars and Mi