Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1857-11-26
FrOm the National Inteliigencer.
REVISION OF THE TARIFF.


III came up Tor discussion 10 the last Coo.
grea two causes especially combined 10 pre-.
clude the possibility Of that calm aud ma
ture consideration 10 which the important
bearings Of the question en..;;..!!ssii &. One
was the ys:y s:!s. bic. ;;::!od allotted % L 10 the
closing hours Of the session, and the other
may be found in the general indifference
with which the whole subject was regard.
ed at time when the delusivs vision oi
our national prosperity seemed 10 blind the
eyes Of Federal legislators and Of the pub
lie TO any prospective disasters arising from
either former or future notifications Of our
tariff policy. Now that recent events, the
legitimate results Of past legislation, have
given a new significance and a fresh i'm
pottance to this discussion, we have thought
the subjoined extracts from the Report Of
The Committee Of tue late House Of Rep.
r,sentatives, 10 which the whole subject
might be deemed Of interest to
our readers, as we are assured that the facts
aud conclusions which il announces arc
marked by equal truth and wisdom in the
premises:
Extracts from the Report of the Commit.
tee Of ways aud Means, (Mr. Lewis E.
Campbell Chairman of the last House
of Representatives, on "the propriety
ofthe revision aud reduction Of the tariff
Of duties on imports"
Impoa system Of all nations protective Of
their productive industry. Our oOn
policy psrsisteatly governed by this ia-
tentiOn
The protection Of the national industry,
by means of duties laid upon foreign i'm,
ports, is one Of the purposes which charae.
terize the impost systems Of all the Gov
ernments Of the earth whose rank entities
them TO consideration as authorities with
US. This policy, since its adoption by the
first-class nations, has undergone changes
corresponding to changes Ofcondition, both
in Europe and AMERICA; but the principlt
has never been abandoned.
The continent of Europe holds It al
firmly as ever, aud Great Britain, BY work.
ing it to its utmost capacity of beneficial
service. has thoroughly justified the theO.
ry. Her experience is its most perfect de
monstration.
In the United States the doctrine ha,
its disciples andsupporters as numerous and
Influential as principles, rightly understood
ever scared among an intelligent and pat.
riotic people. In the forty years of con
troversy, to which it has been subjected il
this country, the opposing theory has ney
er obtained a victory or aconcession which
can in any way entiteits advocate to claim
possession of the field. Fifteen genera
acts of legislation have made as many
changes in the details of our tariff laws, but
none of them has yielded the principle Of
protection, direct or indirect, to our ma,
tionaI industry.
"Low duties yield tile larger reUenue."-
Tile doctrine and experience Of tie
past.
In lS45, pending the discussion which
substituted the present reduced tariff for
tue higher one of 1912. it was argued by
the Secretary of the Treasury, IN bis re-.
port of that year, that the larger revenue
is produced by the lower rates of duty
He says: "Tbe revenue from advalorem
duties last year exceeded that realized from
specific duties, although she average of the
advalorem duties was only 1857 per cent.
and the average Of the specific duties Al.
80, presenting another strong proof that
lower duties increase tie revenue" And
again, he says "whilsE it is impossible TO
adopt any horizontal scale Of duties, or
even any arbitrary maximum, experience
proves that, as a general rule, 20 per cent.
advalorem will yield the largest revenue"
This principle, which is a sound one,
does not apply to either of the extremes
Of impost rates. for the one may be car.
RED up to the point which is probibitory
Dr. near to it. and the other down to that
which would be as nearly nugatory, and
20 both extremes may be made to operate
alike upon the Treasury; but it is true
within a comparatively moderate range Of
fference-that is, within any such differ.
ence of per centage as any advocate of re-
luction would now undertake to recon-
mend.
The facts which our financial history Of.
iers in support of this doctrine are in gen.
araI as conclusive as these following, which
your committee select from multitude for
its pr, of.
Under the tariff of 1912 the average
duties upon protected articles was some
hing above 40 per cent; the average
monthly receipts from customs under that
net amounted to $l,99l,267. Under the
Tariff of 1916, with its average duties be.
ow 80 per cent, The monthly receipts du.
ring the FIRST two years of its operation
reached the sum Of $2,575,207.
Mr.. Walker. in his report, December
IL, I848. page 8, says: "As the high du-
lies under the act Of l849 we're rapidly
the domestic articles, and ex.
,luding the foreign rival, the revenue must
have declined. From this disastrous con-
iition we have been saved by the tariff of
1916. yielding from reduced taxes an av-
srage excess, thus far, Of more than seven
millions Of dollars over the average receipts
rom the tariff Of l842."
Twice under the operation Of the CON-
promise act, once after the second deduc-
ion was made upon the rates Of the act Of
1889, and once after the third deduction,
he revenue from customs RISE to the an
nual average Of the high tariff Of 1925
And 10 the year lS45, when its lowest