Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1854-03-08

Gus. Some commodities may be produced
abroad fifty per cent, cheaper than here
, others only twenty five; Others 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 recent. cheaper
The revenue standard on 'diffefent commodr.
ties is therefore, necessarily various. pro.
pose to ascertain. as near as may be, this
revenue standard in reference'sto every com.
modify; aud, having found it, to graduate
the tariff according. tosthe lowest rates be-
low this standard whchssyill furnish sufficient
revenue. This repudiatcs horizontal tariff;
which, indeed, all experience and all theory
repudiates. would have the duties range
from five to twenty per cent. 70 arrange
the details Of such astarif would require a
good deal of consideration, but involves no
insurmountaLle difficulties
By universally Of imposition, mean that
every commodity shoald pay some duty,
When every commodity paid some duty,
every commodity wouldspay the least amount
of duty. 1t is like raising a given amount by
subscription the greater The number of SUBJ
scrihers, the less amount of individual sub.
scription. The principle, upon which the
taxation on imports rests, is that it is an as.
sessment on consumptian to be logical, we
must make this assessment universal any
departure from the principle is gross incon.
sisteucy. To admit soE,e articles duty free,
and tax others is to perDit portion Of con-
sumption, or what is tie same thing, a por-
lion of the consumers, go free from a just
share of taxation. What justice there is in
this sort of favori,is,n isbeyond my concep-
ton. To tax consumption, as you profess
to do, fairly, you musghave unlversa'fy OF
imposition, and reject tie idea of afree list.
BY this means you willnationalize taxation ;
every consumer will .fel his due share of
the burden. The onlgSarticles | would ad.
nit free would be such as, at the lowest
rates, produced n merssnomnal revenue; as
matter of convenience such articles might
be admitted free.
By taxing only portion Of the Imports,
as is proposed by the Secretary of the Trea.
sury, and admitting aimsss OF articles free of
duty through the exercise of. little legisla.
tive legerdeman, the burden of the duties
may be thrown on certain classes and Sec
tons to the exemption Of other classes and
sections. do not imagine we can attain
positive equality under any tariff; for from
the particular forms ef$industry, which are
also sectional in this country, it would be i'm
possible to invent tariff that would bear
with entire equality on all classes aud Sec
tions But though we cannot attain positive
equality. it does not follow but that we
should obtain as much as is,attainable. 1t
may be oaid this unversslty Of dulles is not
as near an approximation to free trade as
the lree.list system. But think the con-
trary will appear from the slightest refec-
lior. The idea of a free list implies higher
duties on the remaining imports; and to the
extent to which the taxed articles pay a
higher duty to make up the deficiency
caused by the free list, to that extent is the
importation of those articles discouraged
While YOU admit some articles free, and arc
thereby compelled to tax the remaining in-
ports higher, which are. necessarily more
numerous and valuable, you more than coun.
terbaIance with one provision the free I'M
portatun you encourage with another. The
nearest practical approximation to free trade
consists in a low duty diffu.ed over all i'm.
ports, and not high duty on some articles
aud no duty on others.
As regards luxuries, the duties should be
higher on them than on 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. of it for government, than one OF
$500 can spare five per cent. TO insure,
therefore equality as nauch as may he, uxn-
ries should pay higher rate of duty. But
this principle should net be pushed ton Ear;
for experience has shown that high duties
on luxuries consumed entirely by the rich,
operate rapidly to diminish their consump-
ton. As an illustration on this point, in
England, from 1928 to 1924, the rate of
duty ON French wines was thirteen shillings
nine pence per gallon, at which the COLI
sumption was only one hundred and seven'
fty.one thousand eight hundred and thirty.
eight gallons per annum; in 1926 the duty
was reduced to seven shiings three pence,
and during the subsequent tnu. years, the
average annual consumption rose to three
hundred and sixty thousand four hundred
and fifty gallons. And an exorbitant duty
on luxuries, by discpuragiug their importa-
ton, may diminish the demand for the pro-
ducts of our industry, for which these uxu.
ries are exchanged. TO explain, France is
enable to buy our cotton and tobacco, to
certain extent, with her brandies, wines. and
silks. If we tax these articles too highly, it
will re. act upon ourselves, and affect the
demand for, and cons -quenlly the price OF,
these staples.
Such tariff as the one have recommeu-
deA woul4, | think, carry out, as near as
MY be, the principles Of taxatiop have in.
dicated as desirable. The smallest amount
Of money, ,uld he taken from the people
directly by Government: the indirect tax TO
the manufacturers would be as small rs pos
sible. The burdens Of taxation would fall
as equally as possible on all classes and sec.
TONS. As little interference as possibly
would be had with the industry Of The coun:
try. And it would be strictly constitutional.
invite scrutiny to my recommendations,
aud confidently challenge the ablest fnan-
ciers in this House to suggest atarjft system
which will be more responsive to the great
principles of taxation | havo submitted
to you.
There are two striking facts which ndi.
cate the necessity for the lowest scale of
mora rauanne duties. if wa aim at anything