Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-12-27
REDUCTION OF THE TARIFF.

confined our remarks cheny, 10 That porton OF
the plan of reduction recommended by the
Secretary of the Treasury which proposes to
make large additions to the free list. We
have also commented on the principle, which
the Secretary would recognize and follow, in
selecting the articles to be added to that list.
five have succeeded in making ourselves un-
derstood, we have shown, we think, that the
proposed increase Of the free list if made in
accordance with the Report of the Secretary
that is, by admitting free of duty the raw ma
terials of foreign growth generally used by the
manufacturers be an abandonment of
the Free-trade Revenue Policy Of the Demo-
cratic party.
After reducing the revenue from customs
eight millions Of dollars, by additions to the
free list in the manner we have mentioned, the
income of the government would still, accord
ing to the calculations made at the Treasury
Department, be too great by four and a halt
millions of dollars. To make this additional
reduction the Secretary proposes to divide all
dutiable articles into three classes-one OF
which is 10 be taxed twenty-five, another forty,
and the third one hundred per cent ad valore'n.
1t would be desirable, no matter whether the
object be revenue or protection, to levy its ap-
propriate duty on every article not admitted
duty free. But the cost and difficulty of adj
ministering such a law are too great; and,
therefore, it is that articles Of import are clas
sifed and divided into different schedulss-all
those on the same schedule paying the same
duty.
This method of procedure is proper enough,
if it is pot carried too far. Simplicity, ease,
and economy Of administration are very desi-
rabe in all laws; but we must not lose sight of
cardinal principles in our desire to attain
them. In framing revenue laws, men who en-
terrain the same commercial ideas may very
well differ as to how far such desire should be
permitted to limit the number of schedules
We think, however, that there can be no doubt
that the proposed limitation to these schedules
would require an injudicious departure from
true principles. The intervals between nothing
and t,csnty,JfUe, between twenty-five and forty,
and between forty and one hundred per cent, are
too great. They will not permit the revenue
policy to have fair opportunity to vindicate it
self There ought to be duties less than twenty
FIVE per cent, and there ought to be duties be-
tween twenty five and forty per cent. The reve-
nue. law of 1916 contains eight schedules, and
the great bulk Of articles pay under it a duty of
thirty per cent, That law has indicated itself
by promoting the public prosperity and by
yielding too much revenue.
But we will reserve this point until We have
been afforded an opportunity of comparing the
schedules of the present law with those recon-
mended by the Secretary Of the Treasury, and
Of examining the proposed additions to the
free list. Our present purpose is to discuss
general principles-the time for details will
come after we have finished that task. Just
now the important thing is to ascertain the
idea--the principle--which the Secretary Of
The Treasury followed in carrying out his
schedules. We learn that much from his re-
port when he speaks of the twenty-five per cent.
schedule. Wequote his language as follows:
Whether the general rate should be fscoify.
or ticeaty.fce per cent, is a question Of some
doubt 10 pds thought that reduction TO
toenty per cent. might haze The effect Of an
creasing the repenue By increasing the importa-
fions; enlist the duy of fpeny:tipe per cent.
acould not, probably, hare that eject"
These are the words Of the Secretary of the
Treasury; and, if we understand their pur-
port they prove that he has recommended the
abandonment Of the commercial principles Of
the Democratic party, and submission to the
leading features Of the protective policy in the
method Of imposing duties, as wen as in the
method of annulling duties. He speaks of the
doubt whether twenty or twenty-five per cent.
should be adopted as the rate Of tax, and then
he tells Us the reason which induced him TO
favor the higher rate. That reason, according
TO his own showing, is the apprehension that a
duty Of twenty per cent. would SO far increase
the imports as 10 increase the revenue even at
that reduced rate. IL such was his belief, the
revenue principles required him TO prevent the
result he anticipated by reducing the rate stu
fisrfher-to fifteen, on 10 ten, orto fire per cent.
The fact that reduction Of duty to twenty per
cent. would yield too much revenue by in.
creasiug the imports, was proof positive and
conclusive, that twenty per cent. was higher
than the true revenue point; and refusal to
reduce, under such circumstances, was an
open, clear, and unequivocal desertion of the
freQ-trade revenue policy, which the Demo
cratic party has labored 50 bard to establish.
Bot this is not all. The Secretary Of The
Treasury tells Congress that hesrecommend'
the higher rate Of twenty-five per cent, becaus'
it viii yield enough revenue without inviting
additional imports,ions In other words, b
wishes to reduce the income from customs b
checking importaiions, through the agency 9
duties higher than revenue necessities require
This is real unmitigsted protection--the yer
core and essence Of all those tariff regulation
which have oppressed labor and discourage
commerce and agriculture, in order to fill tn
pockets Of monopolists and build up the TO-