Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1847-12-24

people, whose votes will control the govern
ment and direct the policy OF the ha''oH' Tue
superior comfort, education, 1nlellisGhCe' anu
information, necessarily restfitlng'o 'heni rum
this Improvement of our social systehi' /" iih-
portant TO the successful progress and pefpe-
tuity of our free institutions, ana must De
grateful 10 every republican patriot and lover
Of mankind. Whilst all have derived great
benefits from the new tariff, it is labor that
has realized the largest reward. 1t was con-
tended by the advocates of protection that it
enhanced the wages of labor. and that low du-
ties would reduce wages here TO the rate al
lowed for what they call the pauper labor of
Europe. On the contrary, the opponents OF
high tariffs insisted that labor, left to seek
freely the markets of the world, would find
for its products the best prices, and, as con-
quence, the highest reward for the labor by
which they were produced. The dunes nave
been reduced and yet wages have ADVANCED
and are higher now than under any profecI'e
tariff. There are many more "oIh'hsLnen
concerned in other pursuits tnah III nlaEuldc-
lures, and with much less OF machinery as a
substitute for labor; and by depressing agrl-
culture, commerce, and naVlgaton-Dy re-
stricting their business and the markets Tor
their products-the wages OF those engaged in
such pursuits are reduced many workmen
also lose employment; and, competing for
work in manufactures, the wages OF all are
diminished.
1t is not only the reduced duties that have
produced these happy results, but the mode of
reduction-the substitution Of the ad valorem
for unequal and oppressive minimum and spe-
chc duties. The higher duty was thus al
ways imposed, by the very nature of the duty.
. +bo i'll - h. roluo 81
by the poor: and thelower duty assessed up
on the article of the higher value, used by the
more wealthy, often operating as duty Of
10, 20, or 80 per cent. upon the high-pricec
goods, and of 100 or 200 per cent. ad valoreH
upon articles of lower price Nearly the Ell
tire burden of the tariff was thus thrown upor
labor, by whose wages chiefly the cheaper ar
: ticles were purchased whilst capital, will
) whose profits the more costly goods wer
: bought, was almost exempt from the tax. |
never would have been tolerated 10 have i'm
posed a duty of 10, 30, Or so per cent b,
! name upon costly articles, and OF 100 or 20
j per cent upon cheaper fabrics, where the a
e valorem rates would have exhibited the injus
;, .tce and inequality OF the duty; but was &C
e compIshed by minimum and specific duties
/, which assessed higher duty in proportion t
s value upon the cheaper articles. and the lowe
n duty upon similar articles more costly in price
!, thus imposing the higher duty upon labor an
: the wages Of labor, as efFectuaily as though ii
n tax gatherer had collected from the working
d man third or fourth OF his wages every day
n whilst capital was comparatively exempt fror
b taxation Such is the system which has bee
n overthrown by the substitution OF the reduce
e ad valorem, operating the reverse of the forme
e system, in favor of the poor and the wages
h labor, as far as any tariff can so operate, ant
&c IS we see, even with lower duties collectin
y larger revenue. tax in proportion to tn
If value OF imports or property, must always
te more productive than one which is the revers
N of that rule, or which disregards il altogethe
T. Thus, if we impose 4 tax of ten dollars eac
al upon all houses, it must produce less revenu
Y, than the ad valorem tax IN proportion TO va
g ne; because the former tax would fall mo-
y heavily upon the poor, who were the least ;
bic to hear it, and more lightly upon the wea
h thy, who had greater means OF payment ar
ct thereby revenue would be diminished Thu
l. if the tax of ten dollars were imposed alik
in on the cabin and the costly dwelling, it wou
IT bring less revenue than if the same rate a
I'd vaorem, beginning with the lowest at the raj
Of Of ten dollars, were assessed in proportion
i'd value upon all houses. Indeed, the tax upc
IT, the cabin might be reduced to dollar, Or 50
H. one per cent, and applied ad valorenl to {
ne dwellin,s and it would yield larger reven,
g. than the anti ad -valorem specific tax Of It
ed dollars upon all houses, irrespective of the
s, value, which is no more unjust or unequ
or than the same minimum or specific duties II
IN on hats, caps, boots, shoes, &C., and like ar
nd cles OF import, without regard to their va!u
a The al valorem duty Incorporates itself i
ch separately with the exact value of the articl
IT. and collects the tax in exact proportion to t
RS value; the form which, OF all others, mt
Is, Weld the largest revenue. Perhaps the me
tn perfect model OF an ant-ad -valorem tariff W
D. that of New Mexico, by which duty
tie $500 was imposed on each wagon-load
I'D goods introduced there, wholly irrespective
%, their value.
I'M The great argument for protection is, Il
u by diminishing imports, the balance of ira
ay is turned in our favor, bringing specie into t
in country The protectionists contend II
lat commerce s'chiehy but an exchange of i
he ports Tor exports; and that, in diminish
ed imports, we will necessarily decrease expo
in quantity or price, or both; that ii we p'
n3 chase more imports, we will sell more expo
q in exchange, and at a better price and that
w. commerce is profitable, we should have i
r.. ger balance OF trade in our favor, and usua
p larger imports OF specie; and that the pro-
ed OF commerce, in the increased exchange OF {
Tor own for foreign products, augment the wea
VIZ of the nation. The four protective tariffs W
r. enacted in 1916, 1924, 1928, and 1912. I
ras compromise act interviewed from March, IS;
me until after the 30th of August, 1912; and
the revenue tariff of 1916 Ment into operation !
Iv year. Let us now look at the effect OF hi
q and low tariffs upon the gain of specie DUR
i'm these periods, from 1921, being the EARL
we date to which the records of the Treasury
tho back on this subject From the beginning
,r;- 1921 until the commencement of 1893, z
m, from 30th September, 1912, until LIST Ju
ct. 1876, our excess of the imports OF specie o
Tho the export was Sl2 $50, 3l2, being an aver;
the annual gain OF S791, 2l6 in specie during tn
tho sixteen years OF high tariffs viii st the exc
80 of specie during the eleven years OF the &C
rost promise act of 1888, and low tariff of IS
-se. was S6S,507 $50; and the average anr
iii gain of specie was S6,227,967. Omittng
will tariffs of 1912 and 1916, and comparing
ma ten years of comparatively low duties fl
uch 1888 to 1912 with the twelve years un
na- protective tariffs from 1921 to 1882, we
this under the latter an actual loss Of specie 10
host country by the excess OF the exports Of spc
7ar- over the imports, OF 1851 ,652, as the re:
emf. of protection, and gain during the succe
and ing ten years of comparatively low duties
%he SIG, 294 900, or at the rate per annum of !
,rld 629, 400, and in the single year under the 7
her tariff gain of S22,2l3,55O: thus exhibit
a uniform maln of SnaCip in tho Years of /