The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1865-02-17
Congress and the Paper Duty.

The Joint resolution reducing the duty
on foreign printing paper from 20 to 3
per cent, as passed the House, was amend
ed in the Senate making the duty Is per
cent. As this merely nominal reduction
will prove as much a prohibition as the
20 per cent duty did, we consider it only
an insult 70 the people on the part of the
Senate Better have left the duty as it
was than try to hoodwink the public by
such slimsy fraud.
And here we will say that the party
tina: opposed the entire or partial abro-
CATION of the duty on paper made strong
argument, albeit they sometimes reasoned
from false premises. The argument of the
New York HeqlM that it would be impo-
little for Congress to repeal this duty as it
would thus deprive our government of the
revenue accruing on importatiOns from the
present high tariff. would have been more
iorcible did not the present duty on paper
entirely exclude importations. As re-
cards the revenue to the government. on
the other hand. the advance by paper
dealers and manufacturers has cost Uncle
Sam half a million of dollars more than
the same stock would have done two and
a-half years ago: for it should be borne
in mind that the government is a great
consumer of paper The only argument
that the opposition has made which is
worthy of notice is, that if the paper in
tere-S are protected and the business con-
tinues to promise fair returns, new mills
will spring up and the supply will be in
creased There may be something in this
but the effect Is some distance in the flu
ture. to say the least. But the argument
is a good one for the opposition whether
ii be sound or not: as anything that tends
to snub John Bull strikes an American in
the right spot.
Our belief is, however, that the oppo-
sition to the abolition Of the paper duty
did not wish paper cheapened in the least.
1t is noticeable that the heavy newspaper
establishments were Of late against the
repeal of the duty. Among them we will
mention the n Y Tribune and Herald,
and the Boston Journal We think we
know uhy they opposed the repeal. 1t
was not because they were bought up by the
paper dealers, as a cotemporary suggests,
but because it is for their pecuniary inter-
est to keep newspaper above % cents per
h. 1t is for their interest in this way {:
If newspaper remains at present prices
twelve months longer all their weaker
competitors will be killed off; thus giving
the establishments that have capital
enough to carry them through the crisis
the monopoly of the business When
they get the monopoly they can arrange
prices to suit themselves. We do not
claim any relish for being starved out, yet
we believe we have battlcd for the reduc-
ton of the price of paper on higher
grounds than selt-interest The glory of
our country has been its free schools, free
dissemination of knowledge, cheap books,
periodicals and newspapers. This enor-
NOUS tax on paper is making what has
heretofore been almost as free as water,
one ofthe luxuries-hardly within the reach
Of the masses. We claim that anything
that taxes information and general knowl-
edge Is anti-Republlcan, and contrary to
the spirit of our institutions. AT the
present prices Of paper we are going
right back where England was twenty
years AGO
We have said considerable on this pa
per question because we felt it. We have
advocated the repeal Of duties on FOREIGN
paper because we believed the effect would
be beneficial and immediate. We do not
propose to again occupy much space with
this subject unless it comes up in some
new phase. But we cannot drop this
matter without referring to a leading arti-
Gle, written with great deal Of earnest
ness, in Mondays Jommul, in which the
editor ca>tigates the n Y. Post for certain
structures upon Mr. A. II. Rice of Boston.
and his course on this paper question:
Mr. Rice is the head of the firm of Rice,
hendall " Co.. Boston, the heaviest paper
dealers IN New England. and which the
Springfield Republican SAYS, has made
more money i'll the past year than all the
newspapers in the state The Journal is
very indignant that the Post should speak
Of Mr. Rice as sitting in Congress "to
vote money into his own pocket" and
speaks of Mr.. Rice as a very honorable
man. Very likely. We read that Brutus
was an honorable man" Mr.. Rice may
be all the Journal claims for him, for