The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-09-20
The Tariff OF 1916.

1916 are beginning to be felt, since the Pc
tato rot and famine in Europe are over ;
and am glad TO see that the people and
the press are beginning to speak out upon
the subject.
The great vice of the tariff of 1916 con-
sists in the substitution Of ad 0aiorem for
| specific duties-the object of which, Mr.
WALKER did not hesitate to declare, was
to prepeat the substitution Of .Hmerican
rioal fairies for foreign goods" to break
| down American competition and build up
our foreign rivals. This was his avowed
| object, so declared in his report, and the
bill was admirably adapted to this end !;
and it is now rapidly working out these re-
suits, as is seen in the daily failures among
our iron and other establishments, pro-
| duced by the enormous importation of
British "rival fabrics" Specific duties
assessed on quantity, not value, the for
eigner must pay; while ad ralorem duties,
assessed on the foreign oalue, are evaded
| by fraudulent and false invoices, cheating
our labor Of its protection, our treasury of
its revenue, and driving the honest Anne
rican merchant out of his own markets.
But what is still worse, the al Ualorem
duty takes away protection at the moment
when it is most wanted, and gives it when
it is not wanted at all. For instance,
a, bo,, bo fora,rrp ,pyo,co ,,r,ca &c ,ror, =.
but $50 per ton, as at present-and is, of
course, overwhelming American COMPETE
tion-then the duty, 30 per cent, sinks
down to Sc per ton-no protection what
ever; but when foreign iron rises to $50
per ton, and no protection is needed, then
the duty rises to S1Sper ton-amounting
to absolute prohibition.
The British sliding scale contains the
true protective principle. Itoperates just
the reverse of Mr.. WALKERS ad palorem
duty, which rises and falls with the price
The "sliding scale" rises when the price
falls, and falls when it rises-thus, if the
price rises So, the duty falls SIS; if it falls
So, the duty rises $50 that the price in
the home market is thus kept fixed and
uniform whereas the dd ralorem duty, ris-
ing and falling with the prices, promotes
fluctuations instead of correcting them,
and is alike disastrous to our commerce
and manufactures.
Much of the confusion and difficulty
existing among political and economical
writers on the subject of "free trade" and
protection" arise from the considera-
ton of the subject in the abstract, without
reference to the particular country where
it is proposed to be adopted.
Now, the idea that ''free trade" is the
true policy of all nations, advocated by one
party and "protection" by the other, is
equally erroneous.
Protection is the true policy of some
nations, and ''free trade" of others. Pro-
lection is the policy of all prosperous coun-
tries, where labor and the productions of
labor are high, and ''free trade" is the
policy of all countries where labor and
its productions are low; because, ''free
trade" opening the ports Of countries where
wages and prices are high, to the free in
PRODUCTION of the productions Of low priced
labor abroad, must of course reduce the
high to the condition Of the low, which
evil protection alone can prevent. For
example, a. between Great Britain and the
United States, ''free trade" is their policy,
and ''protection" ours-as 'free trade"
would give them our market and our
money as long as ''man will buy where
he can buy cheapest" On the other
hand, as between England and France,
''protection" is the policy Of England, and
"free trade" is the policy of France, be-
cause, in France, labor and many of its
productions are cheaper than in England.
So, it we had commercial intercourse with
country where prices and labor were
higher than in our own, then our policy
would be "free trade" because it would
open their ports to the free introduction of
our cheaper goods, and enable us to break
down their rival manufactures and carry
away their money by millions.
Much has been said lately on the sub
ject of "the balance of trade''-one party
contending that the larger the balance
against Us the better, because we receive
more than We give, and that the difference
is, therefore, clear gain. But, according
TO this theory, if we bought every thing
and sold nothing, we should grow i'm.
mensely rich The whole error arises
from the assumption that we purchase
foreign goods for sale, and not for conSump
hon. II farmer we're to sell his entire
crop to merchant for $500, and pur-
chase 8 900 worth of goods if he sells
the goods for the same, and pays the mer-
chant the balance due, $500, then he has
/ $500 Left for his croD but M no con