The mountain sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1844-1853, 1849-11-22
The Two Standards for Estimating Duties

briet but admirable comparative view of
The ad Uaiorena and specific duty systems.
The advantage is clearly on the side of
the former. Ii is best in every point of
view, according TO the abstract principle |
of apportioning the tax according to the !
value Of the article--best for the great
body the community, who should con-
tribute to the support of the government
according to the ability of their means
and the amount of their consumption;
whilst the other system is best only for
the manufacturer, in protecting his fa-
brics
I'D ualoren, and specific duties.-Re-
Gently general attack by the friends Of
the protective policy has been made upon
the ad valorem principle of levying duties
upon imports. 1t has been discovered that
this principle, which takes certain fixed
proportion of the value of imported goods
for the uses of the government, is oppres
slve 10 domestic interests and destructive
to the public morals. Long essays are
published, plentifully interspersed with
tariff statistics, to prove how the revenue
may be and is habitually defrauded to an
enormous extent by false invoices and
wholesale perjury. There is undoubtedly
a great deal of ifficulty in exactly valuing
the goods imported, but it is an error to
say that the foreign invoice is the measure
of value received at the custom-house. 1t
is only one of the proofs of true value,
which is determined here by our own
officers, and penalties are imposed for an
differentiation. If an invoice of goods IS
found on appraisement to exceed in value
by only ten per cent. the value declared
by the entry, the whole invoice is charge
able with faCenty per cent. increase of
duty on the appraised value. Dilligent
and faithful officers could, we think, make
differentiation dangerous and expensive
business. Besides, if the objection be
merely to the operation of the system, ii
ought not to be condemned without pre-
vlous exhaustion of all means for giving it
fair trial. One remains yet untried,
which would doubtless have a stringent
effect in repressing frauds. 1t is that on
all occasions government should hava the
option of taking the duties either in cash
upon the valuation, or in kind, taking its
proportion OF the goods. This has been
proposed at different times when tariff
bills were under consideration, but there
are difficulties in the details for CARRYING
II out, which caused its rejection. But it
would, decidedly, be better to adopt it,
rather than abandon the ad valorem sys-
tenn for that of specifics, The difficulty
of administering the law should be no
ground for the adoption of an antagonistc
principle while any remedy is possible for
the defects.
But the defects of the law are of secon-
diary importance after all, in the objections
to the ad valorem duties. The real griev-
ance is in the principle, and the real ground
of complaint is, that it does not sufficiently
protect the domestic manufacturer in the
possession of the market against foreign
competition. Fairly stated, and openly
stated, the demand is, that specific duties
are needed to protect domestic manufac-
turers, because ad valorems diminish when
1t is the interest of the manufacturer that
they should rise, and rise when they are
of no use to him.
Yet we see it often stated that the man
ufacturers want no increase in the absolute
rates of taxation. All they want is that
the protection contained in the ad valorem
dutier should be made specific.
The propositions are irreconcilable.-
Specific duties take into consideration
quantity in some form only. AID valorems
consider only value. By one system, a
fixed tax is charged upon all imports of
the same kind without regard to cost; by
the ad valorem rate every individual art-
Gle is charged in proportion to its valua-
ton. A specific duty on any class OF
articles, as on a square yard of cloth, or q
dozen of glassware of some kind, may be
accidentally equivalent to given ad val
orem upon one of the articles. But with all
others of the same class, it is different
and the difference increases in both direc-
tons from the point of casual coincidence.
Thus specific duty of one dollar yard
upon cloths is twenty-five per cent duty
ad valorem upon cloths costing four dollars
. yard; and every specific duty can thus
be shown to be equivalent in some cases
to a certain ad valorem. But at every 9TH
er point the duties by one scale increase
as the other diminishes. Thus the duty
oftwenty-five per cent. is equal to duty
of one dollar a yard on cloths costing four
dollars. But on cloths costing six dollars
yard, twenty five per cent. would
amount to one dollar and half. The
specific duty of one dollar, the yard would
only be sixteen and two-thirds of one per
cent. ad valorem. So on the inferior
quality, costing two dollars yard, the
specific duty would be fifty per cent; and
the ad valorem of twenty five per cent.
would be only fifty cents. Both fuctuate
as the cost Of the article varies-only the
ad valorem preserves the same proportion