Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-12-29
REDUoTIoN OF THE rARIFF,


REDUCTION OF THE TARIFF,
We have pointed out the protective features
of the plan for reducing the receipts from Gus
toms proposed by the Secretary of the Trea'
sury. That plan, we have shown, abandons
the commercial policy ofthe Democratic party
as we'll in the manner of levying duties as in
the manner of RENTING duties. But it is not
protective in its general features alone, for each
minute feature has protective cast 1t not
only disregards and abandons free trade prin-
ciples but it fully sustains monopolist discrim-
nations, Ia
The Secretary of the Treasury would place
on the free list the raw materials used by the
manufacturers: He would do this for the pur-
poses Of strengthening the manufacturing in
terest, so that it may sustain itself in foreign
markets, as well as in the domestic market
But he proposes to do more than that. He is
unwilling to give to the agricultural interest
the benefit of the principles which he would
recognize in dealing with the manufacturers.
For instance he recommends that in select
ing raw materials to be admitted duty free for
the benefit of the manufacturers, those arti-
cles should be chosen which are not grown
in the United States.
This rule repudiates the agricultural in
terest, even in the limited scope of incidental
protection. It discriminates against that in
terest. 1t requires that the revenue from raw
materials shall be raised in manner which
cannot give even incidental protection to agri-
culture. 1t SO happens that our leading agri-
cultural products need no protection, and can
not receive protection in any other manner
than by an export bounty. But there. are
many agricultural products of the United
States, used by the manufacturers-sma in the
items but consderablein the aggregate which
come into competition with similar products
from abroad. A duty on such articles would,
of course, operate protectively on the produ-
GERS of them; but the Secretaryof the Trea-
sury says they must not enjoy that protection !;
that the tax on raw materials must be levied
on those materials only which are not grown
in the United States. In other words, the
head of the Treasury Department would make
such departures, and only such departures,
from Free-trade principles as will tend to
strengthen money capital and swell the profits
of associated wealth.
fit be true policy to levy duties on such raw
materials as are not produced in this country,
why is it not true policy to levy duties ON such
manufactures as are not produced in this coun-
try? fit be true policy to admit, free of duty,
agricultural products grown abroad, why not
admit manufactured articles fabricated abroad?
No sound Democrat can answer these ques-
tons satisfactorily without disavowing and dis
owning the Federal principles which the Sec
rotary of the Treasury has promulgated in his
Annual Report. We have thought much on
this subject and we are forced to confess that we
cannot understand either, the just right, or the
good reason, of fostering one branch Of indus
try without fostering Others If it be good
policy to protect manufacturers, it must be
good policy to protect farmers and shipowners.
The Federalsts entertain different idea, and
Democratic Secretary Of the Treasury has
adopted and recommended the Federal idea.
Under any circumstances, such recommen-
dation would be remarkable; but, under pres
ent crcumstances-when freetrade principles
are triumphant--it is we'll calculated to attract
the attention of the whole country.
We have no disposition to find fault with
any plan for reducing the tariff; but the plan
proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury is
SO protective in its character, and it is sustained
by reasons so much like those we were accus-
toned to hear from Federal politicians, that
we felt it our duty TO demonstrate. Our remon-
strances couched in mild and inofensive Ian.
guage, have been met by denunciations hurled
from protective sources. We have, therefore,
double assurance that we are right-that we
are striving to expose and repulse an attack
upon Democratic principles. In the first place
we have the sanction of our own calm judg.
ment. In the second place we have the conso
lation to know that journals in the manufac.
turing interest assail us because we oppose the
scheme proposed by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
We have been accused Of hostility to the
manufacturing interest, because we repudiate
the idea that the revenue laws should be framed
with particular and an especial view to the
encouragement of manufacturers. We are NOT
hostile to the manufacturing interest. We
wish to see il flourish with whatever vigor there
is in it but we will struggle to the bitter end
against any system which proposes to build
mp the fortunes of manufacturers, by pilfering
the pockets Of men engaged in agriculture and
commerce. II open, direct, and positive rob
berry was attempted, the case would not be sc
bad; but the unjust appropriation affected BY
protective laws is secret, calm, and silent--liks
the absorption of vampire. The patient feels
that he is weak, and worn, and wasted Of hi
strength; but he cannot perceive how it hal
been drained from him.
It is not often that we address ourselves I,