Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1849-01-20
THE ADvALoREM SYsTEM.

democratic members from this state, who
have been charged with having become the
advocates of the tariff of 1916, we have
thought proper 10 lay before our readers
the following extract from the speech of
the Hon. James Thompson Of the Erie dis
trict. MIR. Thompson, it will be seen is not
in favor of Mr.. Walkers ad miorvm sys-
tenn. His views on this subject, correspond
with our own, and are accordance with
those ofthe great mass ofthe people.
Now, sir, what followed1 The tariff Of
is4e. Sir, (said he.) I opposed this mea.
sure, earnestly and with all my might. 1t
was radical change-a new principle-one
that | thought wrong and which, in many
particulars, still think wrong. And now,
sir, go for the modification Of il; change
to suit the wants and interests of the country.
am not welded 10 dates--ihe bill Of the
3Oih August, 1s42-nor 10 the identical one
of August, some date, of Is46. | subscribe
to the principle of progress and reform
What might have been right in 1912, may
have become wrong in 1916 and 1s4s. EN-
pires have fallen down; dynasties become
extinct policy had changed; revolution in
everything had taken place, altering the COM
mercc, the trade, and manufactures of almost
every country in the world. A change in
some-in many things, became, as neces
tn h. -
did, dictate that we should change our sys.
TENS only so far as the changes in times re-
quired them. This was his doctrine. Not
withstanding his objections to the tariff of
1916, and that of most of his colleagues, the
tariff Of 1916 was passed. The objection TO
the new system was great The doctrine of
a tariff for revenue, discriminating for pro-
lection, seemed TO be universally held. This
was doctrine that all seemed 10 go for: pro-
lection as an incident to revenue. This is
all we wanted, he said. But the act OF 1916
Disseminated against protection. 1t opera
ted badly, when most needed for protection
take, for example, iron. And he instanced
this article, as he was most familiar with it
He put it as an example. We will suppose,
at the time of the passage OF that act, that
pig metal was selling for $40 per ton; the
thirty per cent. on that would be duty of
SO. This was high duty-more than was
wanted but TO the example: When the
price of iron abroad came down to SIS per
fop It,tx- lnse
OF SO 60 cents revenue, as well as Sl2 cheap
er by way of competition. But if it came
down TO S9-and he believed it had at one
time-,hen the duty was So 10 per ton, and
reduction of S2l per ton in the price, to fa-
ciltate competition. Thus, sir, you lost Sc 80
revenue per ton, and S2l protection, if you
choose. It discrmminated against labor
when products were abundant abroad and
cheap. We thus become losers of revenue
without o shadow of shade of protection
Now, sir, what is the remedy for all this
1t is plain. Specific duties-modeIate speci
| fc du,ies-moderate, not inconsistent with
revenue. Take iron again as an example
fix price for it., say $50 or S25 per ton
calculate it at $40, if you please say thirty
per cent on this valuation; this would be
six dollars. Now, sir, when il would become
abundant abroad, and should come in at nine
dollars, 1.-THE valuation per ton,) you woulc
still get your six dollars on the ton; and the
more that should come in, tthe evidence o
superabundance, and want Of market abroad,
4 ~.
country. Let this be the system in regarC
to the great articles Of manufacture and pro
duce Of the country. Specific duties woulG
give stability. Our affairs would not be mad.
to fluctuate, nor our revenue either.
MIR. c. J INGERsoLL inquired, if his col
league did not consider specific duties neces
sary on liquors, wines and brandies!
Mr. THOMPSON said he did not know-h,
could not answer--he did not deal in thes.
articles
Mr.. C. j. ISGERsoLL. You will, if you con
slider the interest of your country
Mr.. THOMPSON said he could not charge hi
colleague, for whom he had the highest re
gard, with any want Of consistency, not il
the least But it seemed TO him to be within
his recollection, that his colleague, at th'
last session Of Congress, proposed reduc
ton of duties on liquors to fifteen per cent.
MIR lNGERsoLL. proposed it--for Their
ought, no doubt, to be reduction, but
ought to be reduction to specific duties
they are good deal better than your ad va
lorems.
Mr. THOMPSON said he was opposed to a
valorems as universally applied. He though
it mistaken policy in every point of sigh
He was in favor of reasonable specific duties
but opposed to minimums.
Mr.. GREELY begged the gentleman fror
Pennsylvania to tell him how he could hav
specific duties and not minimums?
MIR. THOMPSON. There was a diferenc
between them, he thought-so thought III
trainers of the tariff act of 1912 They fixe
by law an artificial value, without any regar
to its real value, and assessed a duty equal
its whole value in some cases, without an
ooard IN snnply demand market, or an,