Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-12-14


the plan which the Secretary Of the Treasury
recommends for the reduction of the revenue
from customs. We continue our comments on
that subject, because the people should con-
slider it attentively, inasmuch as the adoption
of the recommendation of the Secretary would,
in our Judgment, change the character OF our
Recenue System, by abandoning, to great ex-
tent, the principles of Free Trade, and by in
Producing the features of a Protective Tariff.
The Revenue Bill of 1916 was not obtained
without long and arduous struggle. For
many years the Democratic party taxed its
energies to the utmost in order to rescue the
labor of the country from the avaricious grasp
of the monopolists. 1t finally succeeded in
obtaining Tariff framed on Free Trade
and Revenue principles. That Tariff has
SO far exceeded the most sanguine expecta-
tions of its friends, as to produce larger
income than is needed for an economical adj
ADMINISTRATION of the government. A change
is therefore, demanded-not a change for the
purpose of increasing the resources OF the gov
eminent; but change to prevent unnecessary
taxation and the accumulation of useless and
embarrassing balances in the Treasury.
We contend that the reduction which has
become necessary, should be made under the
guidance of those principles which prevailed
in the construction Of the existing revenue
law-principles which cost the Democratic
party immense exertions to establish-princ
piles which have indicated themselves by un-
precedented success. The Secretary of the
Treasury proposes to maintain those princi-
pies; he admits, to the fullest extent, that du-
ties should be levied for revenue and not for
protection; but, unfortunately, the changes
which he recommends would, to great ex-
tent, be an abandonment of the Free Trade
Revenue policy, which cost us SO much to OBJ
tain, for the Monopolist Protective policy which
1t was 30 difficult to overthrow.
That scheme recommends large increase
Of the freelist and then it divides those arti-
cles, which may remain subject TO duty, into
three classes-one of which is to be taxed
Twenty-Five per cent, another forty per cent,
and the third one Hundred per cent. dd Uatorens.
If the plan of the Secretary emanated from
a Federal source there would be but little dan
ger in it. The Democratic party, under the
influence of wholesome distrust, would scru-
tinize its features, perceive its character, and
anticipate the results which would flow from its
adoption. But the case is different when such
a plan comes from Democratic source, and
is recommended in language interspersed with
liberal sentiments and abstract ideas taken
from the Free Trade school. Liberal sentiments
and abstract ideas are worth but little, unless
practical effect and vital energy be given to them
by positive enactments. We should, therefore,
examine the manner in which the Secretary OF
the Treasury proposes to yeduce the income OF
the government--the principles on which ne
proposes to reduce the reyenue-before we
conclude that all is right, simply because a re-
tl,.ction of duties is proposed. When that is
done, we hardly think that there can be two
opinions as to the fact that the head Of the
Treasury Department has put forth revenue
scheme which would change he'chardcteT Of
our present Revenue Policy. 6r
In his former report the Secretary stated
the amount of reduction which ought to be
made, at t,celue and a-half millions of dollars
n wear. He also stated that the duties col
lected on the articles which he proposed to add
TO the free list, amounted to about eight mil
lions of dollars Leaving reduction Of abou
four and half millions Of dollars, to be ef
fected by an alteration Of duties on articles re
manning subject to taxation. We shall us'
these figures in our future comments, as thu
Secretary has not intimated inshis recent re
port that they ought TO be varied on accoun
of the developments Of the last year.
The Secretary recommends, then, that n-ari.
two-thirds Of the entire reduction should b,
effected, not by diminishing duties according
to Revenue principles, but by relieving certain
imports from all duties whatever The articles
to be thus relieved from taxation and admittet
duty free, are selected from among those which
are not produced in this country, and are gen
orally used for manufacturing purposes Thu
Secretary attempts to justify the proposed re
suscitalion and adoptionof this protective prin
ciple Of discrimination, by citing the exampl
ofIpgland and Of other nations which ADM
the raw materials, used in The arts and mana
factures, free Of duty. This practice, the Sec
Rotary says, gives advantages to The foreig
manufacturers in The .sscreign markets; an
hence he considers il no depsrtpre from u,
principle, that duties should DO levied Tor revs
nue. and not protection, Ito counterSct IN
Legislation of other countries, and make N
same articles free undcr our laos phicA ar
free rndcr Hleiys.r k
The time was when the manufacturers wer
satisfied with protection in the United States
The fnonopolistsin 1914, when the great BATH
was fought, contsnded only for the partial ex
cluson Of foreign manufactures from our mar
kets To obtain Eontrol Of the home marke
was all they requibd then; but now, when the,
have been beaten, I'D their restrictive policy ha
been condemned y the peopls,the Seeretayo
m Y - -