Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-21

The protective policy, being thus in violation
OF the great principles of taxation and the Con-
stitution, should be abandoned. So far as man
ufactures may be consequentially protected by
strictly revenue tariff have no objection,
for | take as much interest in witnessing the
prosperity OF that interest as any other interest
IN the country. / only insist that the taxing
power OF the government shall not be used UNI
duly to foster this interest at the expense of
all other interests.
Having seen what the true principles of taxa
ton repudate, let us see to what they lead.
They lead, conceive, to the lowest rate of
revenue duties, universally of imposition, and
discrimination against luxuries. The revenue
standard, that rate of duty upon every COM
modify which will afford the largest revenue,
varies upon different articles. Some will
afford the largest revenue at FIVE per cent;
others at ten per cent, others at fifteen per
cent, and others at twenty per cent. The
reason of this is obvious. The ability of n
commodity to pay tax on importation arises
from the fact that the cost Of production is less
abroad than it is here. The degree in which
this cost is less is various. 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 per cent
cheaper. The revenue standard on different
commodities is, therefore, necessarily various.
propose to ascertain, as near as may be, this
revenue standard in reference to every COM
modify; and, having found it, to graduate the
20, nr1, NJ, To hal bolo IL.
standard which will furnish sufficient revenue
This repudiates horizontal tariff; which, in
deed, all experience and all theory repudiates
would have the duties range from FIVE to
twenty per cent. To arrange the details of such
tariff would require good deal of considera
ton, but involves oinsurmountable difficulties.
By universally of imposition, mean that
every commodity should pay some duty. When
every commodity paid some duty, every CON-
modify would pay the least amount of duty 1t
is like raising given amount by subscription;
the greater the number of subscribers, the less
the amount of individual subscription. The
principle upon which the taxation on imports
reefs is that it is an assessment on consump
ton. To be logical, we must make this assess
ment universal; any departure from the prin-
ciple is gross inconsistency. 10 admit some
articles duty free, and tax others, is to permit
a portion Of consumption, or, what is the same
thing, o portion Of the consumers to go free
from Just share of taxation. What Justice
there is in this sort of favoritism is beyond my
conception. To tax consumption, as you pro-
fess to do, fairly, you must have universally OF
imposition, and reject the idea of free list.
BY this means you will nationalize 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, produce
mere nominal revenue; as matter of con-
venence, such articles might be admitted free.
By taxing only q portion of the imports, as
is proposed by the Secretary Of the Treasury,
and admitting mass of articles free of duty
through the exercise of little legislative le-
gerdemain, the burden of the duties may be
thrown on certain 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
it would be impossible to invent
tariff that would bear with entire equality on
all classes and sections. But though we can
not attain positive equality, it does not follow
but that we should obtain as much as is attain.
able. 1t may be said this universally of du-
lies is not as near an approximation to free
trade as the free list system. But / think the
will appear from the slightest rehec.
ton. The idea Of a free list implies higher
duties 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 discouraged. While You admit
some articles free, and are thereby compelled
to tax the remaining imports higher, which are
necessarily more numerous and valuable, you
more than counterbalance with one provision
the free importation you encourage with anoth-
er. The nearest practical approximation to
fred trade consists in low duty difused over
all imports, and not a high duty on some arti-
cles and no duty on others.
As regards luxuries, the duties 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. Anindividual with an income Of 500, 900
per annpm can better spare ten per cent. of
it for government than one of $500 can spare
FIVE per cent. To insure, therefore, equality as
much as may be, Injuries should pay higher
rate Of duty. But this principle should not be
pushed 100 far; for experience has shown that
high duties on luxuries, consumed entirely by
the rich, operate rapidly to diminish their con-
sumption. As an illustration on this point, in
England, from 1923 to 1924, the rate of duty
on French wines was thirteen shillings nine
pence per gallon, at which the consumption
was only one. hundred and seventy-one thou.
sand eight hundred and thirty-eight gallons per
annum; in 1925 the duty was reduced to seven
shillings three pence and during the subse-
quent four years, the average annual consump-
ton rose to three hundred and sixty thousand
four hundred and fifty gallons And an exor-
bitant duty On luxuries, by discouraging their
importation, may diminish the demand for the
products of our industry, for which these luxu-
ries are exchanged. To explain, France is
enabled to buy our cotton and tobacco, to a
certain extent, with her brandies, wines. and
silks. five tax these articles too highly it
will react upon ourselves and affect the de-
mand for, and consequently the price of. these
staples.
Such tariff as the one have commend-
ed would, think, carry out, as near as may be,
the principles Of taxation / have indicated as
desirable The smallest amount of money
would be taken from the people directly by
government. The indirect tax to the manufac-
turers would be as small as possible. The bur
dens oftaxation would fall as equally as posi-.
bla IN oil clouoo nd ooot.on, A., l...I1 49,.