The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1854-03-01

that l Will not stop 10 enlarge upon it.
The protective policy, being thus in vi
oation Of the great principles of taxation
and tho Constitution, should be abandon
ed. 80 far as manufactures may be con-
sequentially projected 10y II strictly reve-
nue. tariff, | have no objection, for take
rs much interest i'll witnessing the pros
perity OF that interest US any other inter
est III the country. only insist that the
taxing power Of the Government shall not
be used unducly to foster this interest at
tie expense of all olher interests.
Having seen what the true principles
OF taxation rcpudiatc, let us sec to what
they lead. They lead, conceive to the
lowest rates Of revenue duties, universally
of imposition, and discrimination against
luxurles. Tho revenue standard, that
rate OF duty upon every commodity which
will afford the largest revenue at five per
cent; others ut ten per cent; Others Mt
tiftect per cent; and others at twenty per
cent. The reason Of this is obvious. The
ability Of commodity to pay a tax OH
Importation arises from the fact that tho
cost of production is less abroad than it is
here. The degree in which the cost is less
is various. Some commodities may be
produced abroad fifty per cent. cheaper
than here; Others only Twenty-Five; 9TH
ers only ten, and some only five per cent.
Tropical fruits may be produced several
hundred per cent. cheaper abroad than
with us, certain cotton manufactures not
over ten per cent, cheaper. The revenue
standard on different commodities is,
therefore, necessarily various. propose
to ascertain, as near as may be, this revc-
nue. standard in reference TO every com
modify; and, having found it, to gradu-
ate tho tariff accordingly to the lowest
rates below this standard which will fur
nish sufficient revenue. This rep ldiates
n horizontal tariff; which, indeed, all ex-
periencc and all theory rcpudiates. |
would have the duties range from five to
twenty per cent. To average the details
of such tariff, would require good deal
of consideration, but involves no insur-
mountable difficulties.
BY universally of imposition, | mean
that every commodity should pay some
duty. When every commodity paid some
duty, every commodity would pay the
iSNSJ oIuouHl VI dulN. IL ~ hhc ~
given amount by subscription the greater
the number of subscribers, the less the a.
mount Of individual subscriptions. The
principle on which the taxation ON i'm.
posts rests, is, that it is assessment on con-
Sumption; to be logical we must make
this assessment universal; any departure
from the principle is gross inconsistency.
10 admit such portion of consumption,
or what is the same, articles duty free,
and tax others, is to permit a thing, n
portion OF the consumers to go free from
II just share Of TAXATION. What justice
there is in this sort of tavorism is bcypnd
my conception. To tax consumption rs
you profess to do, fairly, you must have
universnlitv if imposition, and reject the
idea OF lree list. by this means you
will nationaize taxation. every consumer
will feel his due share of the burden.
The only articles would admit free would
be such as, at the lowest rates, produced
mere nominal revenue; rs n matter OF
convenience, such articles might be ad.
mitted free.
BY taxing only portion of the imports,
as is proposed by the Secretary of the
Treasury, aud admitting a mass Of arti-
cles free of duty through the exercise Of
little Legislative legcrdemaiue, the bur
den of the duties may be thrown on Ger
tain classes and sections, to the exemption
Of other classes and sections. do not
imagine we can attain positive equality
under any tariff; for from the particular
forms of industry, which are also sectional
in this country, it would he impossible to
invent n tariff that would bear with entire
equality on all classes and sections. But
though we cannot attain positive equality
it does not follow but that we should ob-
tain rs much as is attainable. 1t may be
said this universally of duties is not as
near AN approximation to tree-trade rs the
free-liSt system. But think the contra
ry will appear from the slightest reflection.
Tho idea Of a free list implies higher du-
ties on the remaining imports and to the
extent to which the taxed articles pay
higher duty to make up the deficiency
caused by the free list, TO that extent is
the importation Of those articles discour-
aged. While you admit some articles
free, and are thereby compelled to tax the
remaining imports higher, which are ne
cessarily more numerous and valuable,
you more than countcrbalance with one
provi ION the free importation You encsur-
aye with another. The nearest practical
approximation TO free trade consists in
low duty ditfused over all impo Is, and
not high duty on some articles and no
duty on others.
As regards Injuries, the duty should
be higher on them than on neceSsaries.
Because the rich, who consume them, are
able, with less burden to themselves, TO
pay higher rate Of duty. An individual
with an income Of $4,000 per annum,
can better spare ten per cent. oft for Go.
vernment, than ono Of $500 can spare
five per cent. To insure, therefore, equali.
ty us much rs may be, luxurics should
pay n higher rate of duty. But this prin.
ciple should not be pushed too far; fDr
experience has shown that high duties on
luxuries consumed entirely by the rich,
operate rapidly to diminish their eonsump-
ton. As al illustration on this point, in
England. from 1923, to 1924, the rate Of
duty on French wines was thirteen shil.
lnOS nine nonca mar oailnn M which