Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-12-10

! TO the manufacturer, thereby rendering such Z
duty not only more burdensome, but grossly
unequal; tho home poducer being benefited
at the expense Of the consumer.
II these principles arc sound, it is obvious
that no tariff strictly for revenue, has ever yet
been enacted in the United States.
The early legislation of the country contcm
plated other objects, such as fostering our then
infant manufactures, ind encouraging the pro-
duction of indispensable articles, so as to rem
der our country independent Of foreign gov
crnmentS in case Of war
The objects which originally led 70 our sys
TEN OF duties have long since been attained
but under that system large interests have
grown up which have always claimed and re
ccvcd such consideration from Congress AZ tc
prevent the abandonment OF the idea Of pro
lection.
do not expect that tariff will be now
framed on rigid revenue principles, but in al
changes an effort should be made at least u
avoid further departure from them.
Assuming that the general principles Of the
present tariff act will be adhered to, all will
admit that. having aScertained the additional
revenue required As accurately as possible, the
least increase Of duty that will raise the SUN
is the proper rate to be adopted
In determining, however, OH what articles
the duty is to be increased, strong appeal
will doubtless be made so to discriminate rs to
afford relief to certain interests said to be
unusually depressed.
In n period of general financial distress, such
as we have not set entirely passed, each in,
tcrcst in the country naturally feels the want
Of any all that would relieve its cmbarraSs
ments and restore its prosperity. In respond
ing to such demand, care should be taken not
to afford the required relief at the expense Of
another interest equally in want Of assistance,
and equally entitled to receive it at the hands
Of the government When general calamity
has paralyzcd the hand Of industry and
crampcd the energies Of the people, it i.
unfortunate that at such time, when the
country is least able to bear it, the wants
of the government should force an increase
Of taxation In yielding to the necessity
which comprls the imposition of the burden
let it be done with that spirit Of justice which
! regards with equal care and protection all the
varied interests Of the country.
In conncxion with this branch Of the sub
jcct, would respectfully refer to the views
presented in my last annual report to Congress
1t is also subject Of regret that public
necessity requires revision Of the tariff act o
1857 before a sufficient time has elapsed to test
its legitimate effects upon the business Of the
country as well as the revenues Of the govern
| ment False impressions a. to its operation
must be carefully guarded against. The fact
that this act went into operation on the LIST Of
July, 1851, and was followed so soon by the
disastrous rcvulsion of that year has induced
many persons 10 believe that the one was the
necessary cause Of the other. The advocates
of high protective tariff have not failed to
avail themselves Of this circumstance to press
upon the public mind their peculiar system Of
atfordng relief TO distressed people, by in
creasing their taxes Every interest in the
country which suffered in the general calamity
has been earnestly appealed to, and no efforts
have been spared to induce each and all TO be,
licvc that their miSfortuncs have been produc'
ed BY the passage Of the tariff of 1857. There
is however. one important point in the argu'
lucnt where the logic Of the protcctonists Is
wholly at fault The revulSion was not coniin.
cl to the United States, or even to this CONT
ncnt. 1t swept over the world, and was
felt with equal and perhaps greater severity
in other countries than our own. These
results have been too universal to have
been brought about by reduction OF about
twenty per cent upon the rates Of duty in tho
United States, being reduction of about five
per cent upon our importations. The argument
of the protcctionists is, that reduction Of our
duties stimulates the foreign trade, and in this
instance its legitimate effect should have been
10 relieve the cmbarrassmcnts Of the countries
with whom we trade, by opening larger
market for their productions They charge
that the increased importation Of foreign goods
into tho country is disastrous to tho business
Of the home producer and manufacturer, by
dcprivng them of the markets Of their own
country. Such is the theory Of the protection
lists. Let us apply to it the facts which have
transpircd under the operations Of the tariff Of
1851
The foreign producer and manufacturer have
not been benefited by the reduction. At all
events they have not been preserved from the
general calamity which has come upon the
producers and manufacturers of similar Tti-
ccS in our own country.
The importations for the fiscal year ending
June so, 1855, the first and only year OF the
present tariff, amount to 1892 ,6l3, $50, being
$7S, 1891 less than tho importations OF tho
last year Of the tariff Of 1916.
tation of the theory We are combating
For the purpose however, Of more thorough
examination Of the question, propose to con-
slider the operations Of the iron interest during
the same period. have selected iron for two
reasons first, il is one Of the most important
interests in the country, deserving the care
and protection Of the government to as great
an extent as any other, and, secondly, because
it has suffered ~ much, If not more than any
other interest from the recent rcvulson.
By reference to table 6, appended to this re-
port it will be seen that the importation Of iron
and steel of all kinds, amounted, in the year
ending June 50, 1857, to s25,?54.l III. In
the year ending June so, 1853 it amounted to
$l6, 32S, 039: bcinga reduction Of 80, 626, or.
This reduction is accounted for in part
by the reduced prices Of the last year; but
there is shown by the same table large rcduc-
ton in the amount of imported iron and all
manufactures of iron. Whatever cause, there
fore, may have produced the great depression Of
the iron interest during the last year, it is
very clear that it is not owing to an increased
importation of foreign iron under the act Of
1851 II, az alleged, the price Of iron in this
country had been reduced by the increased i'm
portations caused by the reduction Of duties,
then the price of the article in those countries
from which we import ought &c have been ben
officially affected \ comparison of the prices
in this and foreign countries, during the last
year, will show that such was not the fact, as
the price fell. not only in the United States.
but in Europe also. The price of pig iron, on
board. at Glasgow, on December 81, 1856, was
As. Cd; on December 81, 1857, 5es. 3D.; being
decline OF twenty-nine per centum. The
average price at New York, for January. 1857,
was $25; for January, 1858, was $2o 90;
showing decline Of eighteen per cen,
tum. The difference between the highest
and lowest prices in New York for the year
1867, being $Sl in April, 1857, and S23 in
December. is less than twenty-six per cen
t,lm, whilst the difference between the
highest and lowest for the same year, at Liver
pool, was thirty per centnm-