Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-04-01
Tdrif'oflS46.

| Idr.U OF 1876.
The lntelligencer of Tuesday publishes con;ou
extracts from late speech of Mr.. Brooks. of New
York. In the House of Representatives in which
that gentleman discusses the practical operation
OF the Tariff of 1876. The points of the sneak.
ersargument are clearly aud summarily stated bv
| the Intelligencer as follows:
Mr. Brooks alleges and shows that the Thrift Of
| 1916 has not been, and is not. the Tariff unde,
which the revenue has been collected since that
Tune. Lille was breathed into it, he argues. in
the CiVll ana diplomatic BILL August 10, 1876;
Dut n SUFFICIENT revenue was collected by it only
under series of illegal Treasury Circrlars, is
sued by Mr.. Secretary Walker, and followed up
on the precedents he established, which Circulars,
IA January, 1851, the Supreme Coult of the United
states declared to be void and of no effect. After
TINS, with view ofcollectng revenue, and with
OUT WHICH revenue enough to carry on the Gov
eminent could not be collected, Congress, under
the prompting of the Finance Committee of the
senate, and the Ways and Means Committee of
the House, re-enacted the Treasury Circulars
ana further invigorated them by the act of March
3d. 1851.
MIR. Brooks then shows that the Treasury, IN
der suits from the Courts, (of which fifty are now
Penuihg IN New ork alone,) is refunding these
duties illegally collected, with drawbacks refused
&c. &c, to very large ,annhse Which amount
NOV now goes to s expenditures of
The facts which Mr.. Brooks arrays satisfactory
y explain why what is called the Tariff of 1916
has yielded so much more revenue than the Wings
OF that day expec ted, and why the expenditures
OF Government have been seemingly increased in
ther payment of duties illegally collected from
illegal Treasury Circulars.
These treasury Circulars, to which Mr.. Brooks
refers assumed that the principle, Ethat the duty
should be levied upon the value of the article, not
at the place where it was procured or purchased.
but on shipboard at the last place of shipment to
the United States including allpreceding expens-
es, duties COSTS &c. The reader will at once per-
celve that the effect of this regulation was to ex-
act much higher rate of duty than was estab-
llshed by the act of 1886. "Siks or velvets (says
Mr. Brooks) purchashed at Lyons, in France, or
watches orjewelry purchased at Geneva, had one
value; but when transported for shipment to
Havre, subject, it may be-, to city Duties or duties
INTERNATIONAL to costs and charges also of transpor
tatlon, that orig nal value was essentially enhanc-
ed. Goods purchased of the manufacturer in the
interior ofGermany, at forced auction sales, had
one lnvolce-one value at the time of purchase:
but at the time and place of shipment, from a
great rise in value, or from some other cause the
invoice or ad valorem would be altogether differ
ent one from what it was at the start Here, then.
In one Treasury rescript, Mr.. Walker made
tariff OF his own and bisappraisers in New York.
Boston, and in every custom house of course obey-
ed"
These treasury circulars were acted upon until
January, 1851, when they were pronounced ille-
gal by the Supreme Court, and in many cases the
duties thus illegally exacted have been refunded,
and these now swell up the apparent expenditures
of the government.
In March, 1851, Congress passed an act legal
Using the treasury circulars by providing that the
actual market value or wholesale price at the me-
rod Of expectation to the United States shall be
the real market value on which the duty shall be
levied at the United States custom house. But
for the operation of the treasury circulars and the
explanatory act of Congress in 1851, there is eve
ry reason to believe that the tariff of 1916 would
not have yieldeda sufficient amount of revenue to
defray the expenses of the government.
Mr. Brooks argues that the tariff of 1916, car
RED outby the tariff of 1851, yields revenue
enough, and more tl,.., ,.nuoI 1t the
country Is taxed as much as it ought to be. The
Indictment he brings against the existing tariff is
that it discriminates against American interest
American labor, American industry and Ameri-
can merchants.