The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-02-10


l54s. Il upwards of a. This rate OF expenditure.
which 10 nearly double OF the average per cenage,
pended IN collecting the customs from the formation OF
the constitution 10 this time attempted 10 show was
much great that instead OF the per centsge Tor col
ectng growing and revenue increased,
the precise reverse osEn. 2 % me esse y 'hs Per
less than small one. showed that in the States where
system of direct taxes prevail, always supposed TO be
amounts and upon personal application, than that OF
indirect taxes where the sums are received IN large
smouns and at specified places. not more than hye per
cant was expended in collection. showed that during
the existence of the direct tax, In 1915, when only
S356065 were collected from the whole OF our broad
sxpsnse Of territory the expense q collecting was out
Kingdom. where economy in expenditure 70 no part Of
their system--as surely il ought to be with usthe ex
pepss Of collecting their customs was io hs year ending
alone 81 was five and half; in England alone less
than i've and in London less than three showed that
In OF her insuar and exposed situation, her
proximity to the continent and the great inducements held
out for smsgging BY the very high rate Of duty upon
many articles she was compelled to keep up enormous
land and water guard which, from our different condi-
ten, IN the particulars referred TO, unnecessary with
ns. This item aloe amounted, in the United Kingdom.
in the year 1885, TO the large sum OF E4706S4 or up
wards of two millions three hundred thousand dollars
From all this inferred il impossible that eight
nins per cent was necessary 70 collect our customs
OF this argument was the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. VIM
ToKl He said that was mistaken in my estimate of the
COllcCunK
the head Of expenses Of collecting the revenue from Gus
TOMS they do not embrace all the charges that fall under
that head in this country and that you include there
ton there would not probably fall short Of seven and
half per cent And when requested by to specify the
items referred to BY him, he named their warehouse ex
bred and sixty odd thousand pounds, and which in Eng
land not charged to the expense OF collecting the
toms And be also referred to some other ITEMS the
Now, sir, il 10 true there are some items which with
us are charged the OF collection which
charged in England but i j. also true that there aIs
are not charged with u.s. and II exclude these items
% make the comparison perfectly fair, SO far from
and Great Britain. il viii greatly increase it. This struck
il the first examination made OF this subject and
to me 70 the but thought
recast the calculation made BY the British government
itself Of the cost Of collecting their revenue So took
gentleman from Ohio has seen t to 60 into this matter,
must follow him. And, Mr.. Chairman, the gentleman
excuse for saying that in this part OF his argu
ment do not think he displayed candor becoming his
y high character and position
He spoke with the English document in his hand
With this OF authentic information before him. he
said that il YOU included in the English calculation all
the expenses charged here, the charges of collection
there would probably fall short OF n per Did
not fairness demand that if he added to the English sun
time have deducted the items included in their estimates
and notin oursi But this he did not do; and he did
not, beg leave to do for HIM SO that the committee
may whether fair comparison will make the case
any better for the gentleman
In the first place. he is mistaken in saying that the
pense Of warehouses was some one hundred and sixty
odd thousand pounds. On the contrary, the item oil
Sio2ooO. which he refeis includes quarantine well
q warehouse establishments II he had looked further
into the document, he would have found that the
o3O i2s, and not to one hundred and sixty odd thou
sand pounds, he states it. As pay neither taxes,
tithcs, nor insurance, as the British do, this amount
ought 10 be still reduced But have the precise data
to do il; and therefore let the item stand. And
charge the expense OF warehousRg to the cost OF coec
ton, admit il ought to be added to that in Great Brit
ain 10 make the comparison fair But then we must de
duct charges there which do not exist here And they
numerous viZ Allowances for special service and
travelling expenses E22063 Ids. Adj taxes, tthes, &c
EA.o79 lis law charges, 1880 1885, approximation
allowances for Offices abolished and Compensation "a
officers for loss of fees-in England when they abolish
Office they do not deprive the officer of his salary
nsous ems such as pensions to widows and children
be, none Of which are chaReable TO collection here
Sss5se i2s making altogether 92so.ls7 4s 1od from
d upwards Of half million Of dollars and to that
tsnt making the comparison unfavorable TO us.
This is not all. The year ls4s was an unfavorable
ons, % far ~ my argument is concerned II the
par Of the potato rot when the British ports were
thrown open to the free admission of articles OF human
food The importations Of such articles were enormous
the cost Of collection increased The very year before
the cot Of collection was in the United Kingdom 90
and In Great Britain alone 4-20.j
But viii not press this part Of the argument further
cE sgree with the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr.
TooMn1 that a comparison with ourselves in former
yess 10 uster criterion by which Judge OF the
sity Tor the high expenditure existing present When
addressed the COMMITTEES before, had not had time 10
70 mnutey into the calculation Since then, my friend
hon Missouri Mr.. GREEE1 has gone into minute cal.
culaton this subject and with his permission avail
mysef OF the result Of his labor He has calculated the
eost Of collecting revenue from customs from 1791
% is<s. The cost Of collection was from i792 to
1912. il was per cent The two years OF the are
left out From 1915 to 1880 il was and $40 From
1881 TO 1885, and Average for SO years. and
ThuS will be that the per centage OF collection has
been constantly growing when, considering how
enue has increased, ought TO have diminished as the
par centags for collecting large less than for
collecting small To illustrate In 1915 when the
receipts $50 100000 the per centage was 4 while
in 1917, when the receipts had fallen to S22O0OOOO
Il had risen 70 e. Still, with these facts staring gen
uemsn in the face, told than when our revenue
has grown till the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr.
WJHTHaoP1 considers II Fearful" twice as large
per cenage 10 necessary as was expended for SO years
and three times - large expended up to
1890 Sir, do not credit II and all the clamor Of all
the custom house officers in the world will convince
Cured in 1s4S necessary, or any such as il is now
asked may Be allowed should be tolerated.
know Il has been said that, with our revenue, our
A lew new districts have been established--none Of
them causing much expendture-but others have been
abolished The facts prove that the expenses of the