, 1866-01-18

I1.El14EazAs11Es>
adopted. 30 full were they OF this idea that
they made unrestricted" free trade their
! plsttosm. Your correspondent "Psotection'
| joined issue and opened his guns On this free
trade fort and has the satidaetion to au-
| nonnce that II has been demolished and aban-
doned by its garrison as untenable. He pat
series OF questions to Messrs. Diller. East
man, aheahan Co... as to the elect "unre-
etrieted commercial intercourse with all ua-
lions" would have on the revenuos Of this
Governmcnt2 Mr.. Eastman made i lame
Int 1abored reply, which was speedily demol-
ished by "Psotection." Mr.. Dil,er, more
sasacions md less foolhardy than his col
league, backed square out Of thedree trade
position, tacitly eonfessing that It could not
be defended in the present condition Of tho
National finances. At The last meeting Of the
! "leaguers," after the officers were chosen,
"Mr. Diller moved .hattthe constitution reported
ths eIeen;tse committee for revision. The motion
- claim this as an impo,rtau. victory for
Protection. Hereafter We shall not be Obliged
to meet IN abstraction nor encounter such
specious catch.phraaes as "leaving the
people free to buy In the cheapest market
and sell In the dearest" "securing unre-
stricted commercial intercourse with au na-
tons." &c. The Chicago free traders have
abandoned Father, Bryant, Of the Now York
Post to his fate, and fallen back on the posi-
non Of "reyeuue tariff" Aner the Tree
Trade constitution Of the League was taken to
the rear for revision and repairs, the new
President Of The association, Dr.. c. h. Raw.
proceeded to define the position Of the League
as be understood it. His inaugural is sineu.
lar production. He starta out with the a.
sertion that the doctrine Of protection Is a
"delnsion, and Its practice robbery "We
are hero" says he, ato prove that the Gov
ernment has no right 10 tax one branch of in-
dusttT for the benefit Of another branch; and
that when It does SO, NO matter what the spe.
ciou6 excuse or the lying pretext, 1t tran
sends ita authority and should be rebukcd."
A few sentences further on be says: ave
must again and again raise our voices against
the false assumptions Of right which lie at the
basis Of all the theories Of protection; and,
1eht1c see admit that revenut may and ought to
6e raised BY the imposition Of uni form dutie. on
imports, Wo must not be SILENT" &c.
Now, I contend that these two positions
arc hopelcssly at variance with each other,
and am surprised that man of Mr. Rays
conceded ability tails to perceive It, II the
Government has "no right to tax one branch
ofindustry for the benefit Of fanothcrbsanch,"
1t must not impose duty on any foreign pro-
duction that IL manufactured or rnised In this
country. The assumed object Of the Gorern-
ment may be to obtain revenue, but In point
Of fact, such duty is a protection to the do
Y71N re In YfYStF9F hNRt], n1n
the farmer who raises the raw matesfal, a.
well as TO The mechnuic who works It up.
What shall be the per cent ofimpost! The
degree Of Protection Is measured BY it. II
made too high II becomes prohi5itory tariff,
or nominal, 1t VIII yield but triaIng amount
q revenue. To be good revenue fariT, the
neither be too high nor too low.
Or. Ray says that s'rovenue may and ought
70 bc raised BY the imposition Of uni form d1-
fies OF. imports" If seycnno may and ought to
be raised by imposition of duties, then be Is
in favor Of q protective tariff To the extent Of
those duties. If he fayors duty Of forty per
cent, It becomes fFprntection'' Of forty per
cent to I'LL those cngaged in producing The
Or agriculsusists: # he iayoss duty Of
twenty per cent, it is just halfas ''protcctirev
as one Of tozty. while duty Of eighty per
cent would be twice as protective as duty Of
forty per cent. It seems to me that this pro-
position Is sel-erident, and proves itsel1 by
merely stating It..
contend that 60 long as the Government
raises revenue by lmposts on foreign goods,
that the tariff which Yields the largest rev.
cnne on the smallest Importation Of foreign
manufactures. competing with home manu-
tactures, is the tariff best calculated to do the
attention Of the Leagucrs to this proposition,
and desire them either 10 prove the contrary
or concede the point.
1contend that the present tariff Is the most
productive for revenue that ever existed in
the United States. Il produces more revenue
previous tariff, and 1t yields more money by
all odds, in the aggregate, than was ever before
realized. Hence, on the score Of revenue, the
mouths Of the 1eagueIs are shut.
But the Protection afforded by low tariff
may be inadequate to enab1e American en-
ployers to compete with foreign producers,
uHieas The 1eagts eflabor Be reduced. 4 ho1i-
xontal tariff OF 20 per cent can be made bet
ter protective tariH to the American manu-
facturer than the present one by the simple
lourneymcn, clerks aud laborers sufficiently.
1t makes no sort Of difference TO the manii-
tactnsez whether the taziE Is high or low,
provided be can Euage the rates Of wages to
he paid his Norkl.en and the prices Of raw
material 10 be paid the farmers.
down, how much they do not SAY. Cau it rs
should result in loss Of fifty or seventy MIL
lions Of revenue. II can only be made good by
Increasing The taIes on On INCOMES, qsn, licenses
riliug moro taxes on domestic ;ndustrye
II . reduction Of IS PET cent on the tariff
Wonld cause fall Of per cent
IL Tie ceiling price Of manufactured articles;
,'o rercru down Is per cent, or the mills,
forges and work khops would close up THIS
has been tho uniform experience with all Pre-:
sious reductions Of the tariff. The farmcr's
ratio. Then what Is rcnRy gained by the COM
nuIityf We get cheaper goods for cheaper
labor and cheaper food, and We all stand Just
about relatively where We stood before-afltr
ws sst over ths panic, crash and nank7uptsy>
prices Of commodities and the wages Of labor.
But says Dr.. Ray, ''wh.1e We admit that
revenue may nnd ought to ba raised By the
imposition Of duties on imports, those du-
ties must be uniform" understand him 10
cent should be levied on nil articles imported
into this country, regardless Of the character
would work In practlce. Suppose We change
the present ta1if to- Uniform
import ,,,os. Of % ,r per cent ,n,na on al
ticles, such as paper for books and neWspa-
pcss, on which duty Of 20 per cent would be
prohibitory, and from which the Government
would derive not dollar Of revenue. Toget
any revenue out of such commodities 1t would
be necessary 10 cut down the dnty 10 three
or fire per cent. Above that point the Amer
icau manufacturers rcta1n Il monopoly OF the
market Shall the whole tarih bn cut down
to three or four per cent rates In order to be
'tuniforu :" Otheswise the Government Is
liable 10 tho charge Of ''taxing all branches Of
industry tor the benefit Of one, (which We arc
told Is '1robbery and crime"
A tariff Of 20 per cent would be prohIb-
ltory duty on many articles largely protec-
tive on others; moderately protective to
others; and insdequately protective to
others, unless the rites of wages md the
prices ofrsw material wesc reduced; uni
form scale of duties wonld work mischief both
Is not ALL. There nfe many arti-
be taxed far higher than articles Of
use and necessity. French brandfes, wines
and gins, silks. lacee, cosmetics, gewguws,
vases, mirrors, Havana clgars, aud a thousand
things bought only By the rich or prodIgate,
should certainly be taxed higher than such
articles as tea, coffee, sugar, chocolate, calico,
boo books pshn eoths htdss coarse
list Of similar products. Tho worst possible
tariff would be "uulform' OF "horizon-
tai" tariT. No nation has such taria. No
Congress will erer enact n Uniform tariff until
onr country reaches that period when no rev.
cn1e shall be needed from foreign goods.
In the course Of his address Dr., Ray said:
YOU gentlemen have great task before you-
I,k'nE r. adsan.sge q suppo-sd national nece:
te country tariff ttat fs wfIhnut paFa,1ef in our