The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-12-16
Ap yALoREM AVE spEcIFIc purTEs.

more fairness in treating the subject of the tariff
than in defining the position Of the Unioa, The
Press disavows the whole scheme Of protection so
does the Union, We disagree entirely, however,
wtL our contemporary, that strictly revenue tariff
may not be arranged on the I'd Uaiorsm principle
The subject is certainly worthy Of discussion and
If the ad ualorem system is what the Press says a
viz unequal uncertain, unsafe diverse in itscon
struoton, injurious 10 the revenue open to unfair
practices and greatly expensive from the number of
persons required to execute it we have no hesita
ton in advising that the utmost efforts should be
made to correct it, But we are by no means ready
to endorse this formidable array of objections to the
dd paofeni principle. Experience does not sustain
them The record of collections does not sustain
them comparison of the two systems, ad paioyem
and specific, does not sustain them. Reason and
common do not sustain them. 1t is not
at all unlikely that in arranging tariff the
specific process may in many cases, be adopted
with entire justice to the revenue and to the vari-
GUS branches of industry affected thereby II the
aubect is approached as a purely national affair,
and with the single object of arranging scale of rev
enue duties, can see no reason why the two sys-
tens should not be fairly considered and their re-
spective merits as fairly determined. The wide
range OF public discussion heretofore, involving the
character and effects of specific and dd UuOrem duties
has been confined almost exclusively to their respect
Two claims on the Of economy Nobody has pre-
tended that a Protective scheme cou Id not be de-
vised npon the one as well as upon the other. The
subject iuat is made to purely partisan
character by representing hatspecic duties signify
protection and that the I'd ualorem plan is identified
with revenue alone. The most conclusive answer to
This unounded assumption may be seen in the fact that
any amount Of discrimination and protection may be
secured by an al paiorem tariff, and that rigid
system Of revenue may be ordained the specific
principle 1t is alleged by the advocates Of the lat
ter that the former involves large expenditures in
the collection of duties that opens many doors to
fraud in the very fact that the Gutes are regulated
IN amount by the valuation of appraisers that such
valuations are uncertain and often capricious and
fraudulent that the whole system is based on
changing markets, and is subject to all the infinite
yicssitudes of commerce, money, and politics
whereas the specific principle is represented to be
definite nfexbe, simple and economical !; the rate
of duty always the same and the system being once
mtted short Of smuggling.
We have thus stated the points made by the friends
of both plans. The objections to the ad paiorea s
TEN we have always thought to great extent,
partisan and unjust. 1t has been charged as a sne
cies Of license for the commission Of frauds upon the
revenue 1t may be more expensive but we doubt
whether wrongs are not often inflicted under il by
the government upon consgnees and shippers as by
the latter upon the government. That il is flexible
is Of it's great meritsthe system accommodating
itself to the conditions of the market 1t often han
pens for instance, that certain goods suffer decline
Of onehalf their value both abroad and at home If
the duties upon them are specific the tariff rates
are thus enhanced fifty per cent
either OF the two schemes, Of course is abso-
lutey perfect. We many objections TO the ad
gaiorem plan, arising from the detailed work of APP
prasas, oaths, conflicts, and law controversies in.
herent therein. On the other side the specific
principle is too rigid and may become, in moments
Of great depression, quite in opposition to the pur-
poses OF Congress, excessively protective. II is,
for instance, conceded at nearly all points that in
adjusting the tariff, protective considerations should
be wholly excluded There is enough of that f,a
ture all impost laws but as long as il is conse
quential, and not primary no one can reasonably OBJ
ject to it. Starting upon this principle it is clearly
the duty of Congress to maintain against the Incl
DENTS accidents, and vicisstudes of practical life
1t is certain that in oodtid of business goods
higher. The government gets increased revenues in
that case under the valuation system whereas, when
depression comes on the specific plan all foreign
trade is largely reduced, importations become ex
ceedingly limted-nore limited OF course under
specifics than ad uaiorems, because the former NAV
be prohibited by the fall Of our own markets and
the comparative enhancement of the duties charged
and the treasury gets little no money 1t is much
to be doubted, as general principle, whether the
higher scale of duties in the case referred to- would
bring the largest amount into the treasury If Il
can be established that it would not, then the law
would become protective in its very nature even al
the expense of the public interests The fact is.
that this whole subject is worthy Of the most calm
and dispassionate examination Of the statesman and
political economist. We trust il may be discussed
in all it's bearings by the very able gentlemen now
in Congressman in partisan apirt-not in defence
of past committals-b but with the candor. research
and power of statesmen charged with the exercise
Of high duties for th9 benefit Of the people No
body will Question the ma triot;en, ;,to~r;... III