New-York tribune., 1869-01-16
HAyE WE 4 PROTECTIVE TARIFF,

ceded it compares with it. In the year ending
June so, 1851 Gn 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
395S2,125 of revenue from 1886, 153 Of
imports, or 81 of revenue on every $S % of
merchandise imported Our present tariff col
lected during the past year, q revenue of
$164, 500 So on net importation d. c., ex-
elusive of goods reGxporte6 of $35i 214,0l0,
or 81 of revenue to 81 s3 of merchandise
imported. AS n revenue tariff, therefore, the
present one collects 49-100 times the revenue
on the same amount of importatiOns, OF
is Al times more efficient than that Of
1867. That it has not in 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 now $70000,000 a year i'll excess of our
exports, including bullion; and also by the
fact that our gold revenue is only S30,000,000
per annum in excess of the amount required
to pay the interest on the National Debt. SO
much for its features as a revenue tariff Had
it been less efficient, our bonds would at all
times have sold far lower than they have, and
our 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
redeemng our greenbacks, paying our debt,
and returning to currency redeemable in
specie.
Now let us see how far it is protective We
have heretofore shown that more than SIP. 100000
of the entire tariff revenue are collected from
/ 4 Al.
| fore cannot protect, viz, from coffee, teas,
West India molasses and sugars. spices. foreign
fruits and wines, &c. All this is paid by the
consumer only, and passes as tax upon the
labor aid industry of the country, and is felt in
rise in wages cost of living rents, &c. For
a tariff levied on an article we do not produce
and must have, differs from n tariff levied on
an article we can produce, in this: While the
J latter may stimulate the domestic production.
and cause the foreign manufacturer to pay the
tariff out of his former profits, or even to sell
at times below the cost of production, in order
to hold his American customers, and so our
taxpayers escape the tax, and our con
sumers get the article cheaper than
ever befOre-n0 such beneficial effects can
follow tariff laid on an article like tea,
silks, cashmere, or coffee, which We cannOt p10-
duce. The latter is simply and only tax on
our industry, and though collected at our Gus
tom Houses, is ultimately paid by the Ameri
can consumer in proportion to the quantity he
consumes. Consumption, moreover. is very
accurately in proportion to population. Rich
men are the custodians of vast wealth, but
their actual consumption of food, clothing, etc,
is very little moro than that of their servants
and of persons having no surplus of wealth.
Assuming that the consumption of imported
goods, and therefore the payment of the tariff
upon them, rests on entire population in
proportion to their numbers we may arrive at
the amount of taxation of all kinds which has
to be borne by our manufacturing population.
For all economists concede that tariff on for
eign products of kind which we produce is
only protective to the extent Of its excess over
the tax on the domestic production.
The number of hands, male and female,
actually employed in our manufactures in 1860
is stated in the census at 1,311,24G AS the
number has happily increased beyond the in
crease in our population since that date, 1t Is
safe TO state it now at 100000 of working
hands. If these support at the average four
persons each, including themselves, we have a
total manufacturing population of 100000, or
one-sixth of our entire people. Reducing the
S112, 100000 of gold revenue levied on articles
of exclusively foreign production to currency,
we have non-protective tariff of S1JG,S00,0OO,
to which add the Internal Revenue taxes
amounting to S19l ,OS75s9; total non protective
tax on our industry, $3478 $50, of which our
manufacturing population bear ono-sixth, or
S57, ,9Sf ,2G4 in currency. In other words, the
S52, 100000 in gold of tariff levied on the i'm
portation of articles which enter into COM
petition with our own manufactures are
offset as to their protective quality by SjS,OOO-
900 in currency, the share of national taxation
borne by the manufacturing classes-ds cOnsu-
mers merely, TO say nothing Of the special taxes
they pay as producers Reducing the protec-
tive portion Of the import tariff to currency
(premum at 40), it amounts TO S2,SOOO0O.
From which deduct taxation resting on manu-
facturers as consumers only s5S,OOOOOO, and we
have balance of $l4,s0O0O of apparently pro-
tective tariff out of total tariff of SlG4OOOOOO.
That is, tariff Of only $li00O,OOO, if levied
solely on articles which we do produce and
can protect, if there were no tariff on our re-
manning imports, and no internal revenue taxes,
would be moro protective than our present
tariff, which levics 10 times rs much tax ; and
even this rcsiduum of tariff calculated to pro-
tcct American industry is subject to Still