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

Phi; - 6 GSDs:r.
No class loses more heavily or sustains
greater, privatons in period Of general revul-
Sion than the agriculturistS, and it isasking toe
f, much of them to submit to additional burdens
+, in order to exempt favored portion OF Their
fellow citizens from the common calamity.
/ The above list also shows how little the de
cline in prices can be ascribed to the change In
| the tariff made in 1857. II occurred inditter
entity, in articles imported in the most trivia
. quantities, and in those most largely imported
in articles the duty on which was unchanged
and in those on which it was diminished; pro
! wing that the cause was outside of all tariff re
gulations and beyond the control of lcsisia
ton.
But if it be alleged that although the change:
made in 1857 did not injurc the American man
ufacturer, yet that such has been the result o
/ the tariff of 1916, which was based on the same
principles, the answer is. that it does not ap
/ pear that the manufacturing interest has suffer
! cd from that tariff While some particular
branches, prcmaturcy or improvidcntly enter
cd into, may have failed. yet the fact is wei
known that all the great manufacturing intc
rests have largely increased since 1916. NOR.
rapidly than the population and general pro-
ductIon OF the country.
/ An examination of the statistics published
under the authority Of various States, among
which may be specified Massachusetts. New
| York and Ohio, will abundantly prove the pro
position. One mode Of asccrtainng the com
parative prosperity Of the several industrial
! interests Of the country, at different times, Is
| by comparing the amounts Of products export
cd to foreign countries, ii being obvious that
/ those who can compete in the common market
| with the like products of other countries ear
certainly maintain themselves at home.
Applying this test to the facts. we find the
! following results:
! The eIpor, Of American manufacture. FOR the
year ISL wa fiot.".''
For the year 39%.i,e
Increase, sl9. s9j ssI equal to 1870 per zen,
! In the same years the exports Of cotton were,
! .......'.................. ;34la -,
| In 1888 III ,@>6 iGi
Tobacco .,...'..'................... ;.g,~G
In ii5. ii.e, 90
! Increase, 10 81, G>l, equal to X; per cent.
! The exports Of agricultural production, eX-
cept cotton and tobacco, during the same pc.
Rod. show MI actual decrease which, however,
! is not fair comparison rs 1871 was year Of
famine in Europe, but the increase OF those
exports. by fair comparison Of the two pc
RODS. is about from Is to 100 per cent.
| Of the exports of manufactures. those OF
! iron and the manufactures Of iron are found to
be: 1877. $l,lG7.4S+; 1858. Si.72?,S7+; in
! crease IS, 562. 800. equal TO sos per cent.
! | am aware that large exports Of an article
may sometimes result from adversely instead Of
{ prosperity, as when the holder unable to make
sales at home ships goods abroad, As last re,
! sort But it is taxing our crcdulity to be told
4 tb.t IF rln IF Ifrp
/ on from year TO year, while the manufacturers
/ arc unable to compete at home with the
importer, though protected by twcnty-four
! or even nineteen per cent And if it be said
J that the wear 1858 was one in which the state
of things referred to especially existed, com
parison Of the exports Of the preceding year.
| conceded 10 be one Of remarkable prosperity,
will show the same result.
, 1t will not suffice to say that this prosperity
! il owing to the influx Of gold from California.
! That has been a cause Of general rise in
prices, and Of increased activity in all indus
trial departments; but no reason is perceived
/ why the agriculture of the country should not
be as much stimulated by that cause as the
manufactures Yet, while both have increased.
the manufactures have increased faster, where
MS if they had been seriously injured by the
tariff of 1916, they would at most, have i'm
proved more slowly than other interests not so
affected
! proceed to consider the question Of the
best mode Of revising the present tariff, with
view of raising sufficient sum to meet the
demands Of the public service. II has been
proposed to repeal the act Of 1857, and restore
the oct of 1916. TO this suggestion there are
serious objections. which, to my mind, arc in
superable | am well satisfied that the wants
Of the government do not require permanent
increase Of the taxes to the extent Of rcviring
the tariff of 1876 The duties Of forty and
one hundred per cent imposed by that net are,
in the present condition Of trade and commerce,
wholly indcfcnsible. The public mind Of the
country will scarcely be brought again to ac-
quiesce in any higher schedule than thirty per
cent, the maximum Of the present law. 1t
would certainly require some more urgent ne
ccssity than exists at this time to justify such
a measure.
1t has also been proposed to adopt the princi-
pie Of home valuation with view, first, Of in
creasing the rates Of duty, and secondly. Of
guarding against under valuation and other
frauds, which arc alleged TO exist under our
present system
As measure for increasing the revenue
this proposition possesses no merit. 1t seeks
to do indirectly what can better be effected
directly. If the sole object is to increase the
taxes, it is better to do so in bold and manly
way. At present the duty is imposed upon
the market value Of the merchandise in the
principal markets Of tho country from which
the importation is made. including all costs and
charges Of shipment
TO substitute for this rule the principle Of
home valuation would be to add TO such value
Of the merchandise the insurance. cost OF
transportation. duty levied, and profits of the
importer.
1t ought to be a sufficient reply TO the prol"-
sition that some of these elements entering
into the home value are not legitimate subjects
of taxation Other and more serious objections
will be considered in another conncyon. The
reason in favor Of home valuation, which has
been pressed with the most carncstneSs, is, that
il will protect the revenue from fraud by under
valuation. The advocates Of the change allcge
that under our present system. the Govern
ment is dcfraudcd, by various means, of its
legitimate duties upon large portion of the
imports In proof this charge comparison
has been instituted between the value Of our
exports and imports for the last three years,
! showing that the imports were less by large
amount. than the exports.
This difference is charged to under valuation.
The remedy proposed is either home valuation
or specific duties. 1t is true that the exports
for the last few years have exceeded the i'm
ports, but the inference which has been drawn
from it is not necessarily correct Other causes
have contributed to bring about this result
1t should be borne in mind that our exports are
valued at the port ofcxportation When these
exports reach falling market abroad, the re-
turn cargo will exhibit in the diminished value
of the importation the loss sustained by the
persons on whose account the exports have
been shipped This often constitutes an i'm
portant element in accounting for that cx-
cess Of exports which has been attributed to
fraud The payment by our citizens of their
debts in Europe which for two years past has