New-York tribune., 1869-01-06

lection. The free traders desire that as large
a proportion of our tariffs shall be levied on
articles we do not produce as on those we do.
The high rates of tariff on tea, coffee, sugar,
spices, foreign fruits and the like are charge
able, so far as they are too HIGH to them, and
not to protectionists If we examine what
ingredients enter most largely into
the increase of the cost OF living,
they are not those on which protectionists
would levy tariffs, such as iron, glass, paper,
leather, &c. They are those. which the advo-
Gates of a tariff for revenue demand shall be
taxed They are tea, Coffee and West India
goods The plain cheap cottons, woolens, and
calicoes worn by the poor are American pro-
ducts. A poor family will not buy foreign
iron ware or glassware to a iftieth part the
cost they pay for sugars, teas, coffee. and spices
We do not approve, therefore, that Obliquity OF
statement which, while claiming to advocate
tariff for protection, falsely charges upon the
protective principle the burden OF tariffs levied
in a mode to accommodate free trade views,
and for revenue only.
Mr. Wells endeavOrs to explain why the
United States finds itself in the anomalous
position of a great nation, favored III many
respects as no other nation on which the sun
shines yet unable to exchange its products
"on terms of equality with the products OF
"any other country" He attributes this
evil in part to Excessive and unequal taxa
" ton" CandOr requires that in this connec-
ton he should have brought out clearly two
essential facts-.frSt: that our taxation is not
excessive relatively to the expenses and debts
we have to meet; and, second: that as no
other nation has so heavy burden OF annual
interest to pay, this is the first and chief reason
why our production is made dearer than that
of any other.
In enumerating grievances we should not
throw the odium of our entire tariffs on pro-
tectionists, when fully half of them are levied
in violation of protectionist principles, and IN
accordance with those of free traders. Nor can
we denOunce them in the aggregate as ex-
"cessve," when they do not exceed the inter
est on the debt and the expenses OF the Gov
ernment. While Mr.. Wells asks for lower
tariffs on many of those articles which we do
produce, such as paper, lumber, salt &C.. he
asks for no reduction on any which we do not
produce. ProtectiOnists would hail with pleas
ure all reductions on the latter consistent with
the maintenance of revenue
Finally, as Mr.. Wells states that the gain
from q vigorous administration OF the Revenue
would amount to the enormous sum of S75,-
100000, and as this gain would enable JUS to
throw off all duties on tea, sugar, coffee, and
many other articles of daily consumption, thus
reducing their cost about 4Oper cent, it would
seem to have been pertinent to his functions,
and would certainly have been of great value
if he had given us some exposition of the
reasons why the frauds In revenue service,
which it has been his chief province to inves-
tigate, have been 50 vast, and why so little
progress has been made toward reform. In
view of the extraordinary length, depth, and
breadth of his report in other respects, it is
very remarkable that this subject has not even
been touched.