The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-18
Have We a Protective Tariff?

from the N. Y. Tribune.
In all attempts to improve the existing
tariff, we trust Congress will carefully test all
assumptions that can be made to produce
more revenue or that IL ought to be any less
protective. AS revenue tariff none that pre-
ceded it compares with it. In the year ending
June 80 1861 Gin the last two months Of which
the tariff enacted March 2, 1861, was in force,
but in the first ten months of which we had
the peace tariff of 1850, we collected
$50, 582, 125 of revenue from 1886, $50 l53 of
imp porte, or 81 of revenue on every IS % of
merchandise imported. Our present tariff col
lected, during the past year, revenue Of
$l64, ,464, 599'56 on net importation q, e., ex-
elusive Of goods reGxported) of 1851 2l4, ,0l0,
or 81 of revenue to Sl'S3 OF merchandise i'm
ported. AS a revenue tariff, therefore, the
present one collects 40 100 times the reve-
nue. on the same amount of importatiens, or
is 4I times more efficient than that OF
1857. That it has not i'll the aggregate been
excessive is doubly proved by the fact that
our importations have increased on those of
1860 about as largely as our population, and are
Row $40 000, 900 a year ia excess OF our ex-
ports, including bullion; and also by the fact
that our gold revenue is only $50, 900, 900 per
anDum in excess of the amount required to
pay the interest on the national debt. SO
much for its features as revenue tariff. Had
il been less efficient, our bonds would at all
orr effort to preserve the Union might have
broken down for want OF the gold revenue
| necessary to maintain our credit. To impair
its efficiency now is to lessen our resources for
redes ming our greenbscl1s, paying our debt,
and returning to d currency Tedeemable in
| specie.
Now let us see how far it is protective.
We have heretofore shown that more than
| SIP, 600 coo OF the entire tariff revenue are
| collected from imports which wa cannot pro-
duce, and therefore cannot protect, viz, from
coffee, teas, West India molasses, and sugars,
! spices, foreign fruits 9nd wines, etc. All this
Is paid by the consumer only, and passes as
tax upon the labor and industry of the couu-
try, and is felt in rise in wages cost of living,
rents, etc. For a tariff levied on an article we
| do not produce and must have, differs from a
tariff levied on an article we can produce, in
this:-W hile the latter may stimulate the do
mestc production, and cause the foEeigu
manufacturer to pay the tariff out OF his
former pr fits, or even 10 sell at times below
the cost OF production, in order TO hold his
American customers, and so our taxpayers
| escape the tax, and our consumers get the
| article cheaper than ever beOrs-nO euGh
beneficial effects can fOllow a tariff laid on an
article like tea, silks, cashmere or coffee,
which we cannot produce. The lat
Ter is simply and only a tax on
our Industry, and, though collected at our
custom houses, Ia ultima ely paid by the
American consumer in proportIOn to the quau-
tity lac consumes. Consumption, moreover,
Is very accurate ly in proportion TO population.
! Rich men are the qustOdians OF vast wealth,
but their actual consumption Of food cloth.
ing, ETC., il very little more than that OF their
servants and OF persons having no surplus OF
wealth. Assuming that the consumption OF
imported goods, and therefore the payment o.