The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-12-14
TIE REyENUEs AND FINANCES.

THE REVENUES AND FINANCES.
The opposition journals endeayoring to raise
mountain OF difference between the views of the
President and Secretary of the Treasury upon the
subject of the tariff That there is difference in
the opinions of these distng men is not to be
denied. aud the fact that il canddly appears in the
state papers which they have respectively submit
ted to Congress- so far from being the subject of cen
sure is honorable to the integrity of both Of them.
The attempt to exaggerate the difference into
thing momentous and irreooneilable may impose upon
the crsduty Of the ignorant, but cannot affect the
opinions of men who are at all conversant with the
subject Of the tariff
Upon fundamental doctrines there is no difference
between the opinions of the President and the Sec
rotary. 1t is emily in regard to details and modes
that they differ in single particular and in this
respect these two leading democrats differ precisely
as democrats have differed and have agreed to diff
fer from the beginning Of the tariff controversy.
Upon essential doctrines, repeat, there is no
variance between the views of Mr. Buchanan and
Mr. Cobb They both agree in declaring that inn
posts should be laid for the object Of revenue, and
not for the object of protection. They both agree
in desiring that the least possible tax should be inn
posed upon the country in the form Of tariff. Ina
word, they both desire that small a taxation shall
be imposed upon the trade of the country posi-
BILE consistently with the necessities Of the treasury
and that whatever tax may be necessary shall be inn
posed directly and immediately for revenue, afford
ing no other protection than what is incidental and
consequential from revenue tariff
This is az far as the doctrines Of the democratic
party, announced in its national platforms, have
ever gone. This is the whole and substance of
all the formally proclaimed of the natio al or
ganization, running through period of now thirty
years. Upon these fundamental doctrines the Presi
dent and Secretary are in full accord. Indeed, they
are not only agreed upon these general principles,
but upon all special principles also, believe save
upon the single question of specific ad ualoreza
duties.
There are those who think that specific duties are
invariably protective; and that, inasmuch as the
President inclines to prefer this mode of levy
ing imposts upon sundry articles of commerce,
he is confirmed protectionist. We have al
ready denied the inference, in showing that the
President subscribes to the opinion that duties
ought to be levied with the object of revenue and
not with the object of protection. The main propo-
sition is also untrue The ad pdlorem duty is duty
levied by per centage upon the value of articles
Of importation; and rises falls that value luc
tuates. The specific duty is levied on the article
with reference to it's average value in the market,
and remains fixed duty, whether the article rises
falls If the average price of an article lisa dollar
and it is desired to levy duty of twenty-five per,
cent. upon it; a tariff law framed the ad palorem
principle would declare that the article should pay
a duty of twenty-five per cent. while law framed
the specific duty principle would declare that the
article should pay twenty-five cents Now, if the
tice went up in price to dollar and quarter, the
ad palorem duty would impose tariff of thrty-one
and a quarter cents upon it; whereas the specific
duty world impose still, only twenty-five centsshow-
ing that the qd paiorem duty may be protective than
the specific duty. SO with regard to all articles.
AS long as they remain at their average prices the
specific duty is less proteetipe than the
ad ualorem. As long as prices remain above their
average figure, the specific duty is less protect
aue than tile ad yaorem. 1t is only when prices fall
below their average rates, in great commissions
happening at intervals Of fifteen or twenty years,
that the specific duty becomes protective than
the ad palorem.
We do not desire to be understood as putting
forth argument in favor of specific duties Our
object is simply to show that specific duty and a
procctfw duty is not identical and that it is only
from the accidents Of commerce that the former on
rare occasions, become protective than ad pa-
loren, duties.
Indeed, many Of the stoutest opponents Of pro-
tective policy are found to advocate specific duties
If the object be to levy protective tariff, it
may be accomplished readily by ad uaiorem by
specific duties; and if the object be to get revenue
only, it is not at all necessary to eschew specific du
ties for there many antiprotectionsts who pre-
fer this species ofimport ofgetting
to ad valorem duties. The leading ground which
these prefer specific duties is that they avoid the
vast labor Of official appraisements Of imported goods
and the whole round of frauds systematically perpe-
trated upon the customs under ad valorem duties.
1t is simply idle therefore, to confound specific with
protective duties and to treat the advocate of the
a disciple Of the other.
For men, who seek revenue and oppose a pro- |
tectiye policy, to differ with each other the SUBJ
iect of specific and ad valorem duties is simply to
differ to the Of accomplishing the same |
end. If both have been framed for revenue, an ad
vaorem tariff 10 Just protective as specific duty