The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-05-05

report. and it is impossible to see how the
evidence can be successfully impugned.
The quantities shown in the tables, are
those upon which the duties were paid,
and the combined amount Of the latter,
tallies with the cash received into the
Treasury. The quantities are not merely
approximate-they are exact and here
the matter might rest altogether. But the
statistics furnish other and less important,
but very interesting results. 1t is observ-
ed that though increased rates Of duty fail
to destroy importation. yet there is, never
theless, an interval which follows the i'm
position of the increased duty, Of about one
year. scarcely ever more, during which the
importation is temporarily checked BY it.
The one is result, the other an incident,
and the objection applies only to the incl
dent, which is unimportant, and is merely
interesting for the reason that it is some
times mistaken for the result.
1t is what occurs in this temporary in
terval-it is this incident, that is made the
ground of permanent policy. while what
follows as permanent result. viz: the de-
feat of the attempted protection, is not
perceived, or if perceived. ignored. Man
ufacturers are delusively led to believe that
an increase of tariff will secure them
monopoly of the home market, and are
thus induced to contribute largely to sup
port combinations having or protesting to
have this object in view. and the influence
to secure it. The combination exerts it.
self in procuring the passage of the law,
profits by being able to anticipate its effect
on prices and having pumped this source
of profit dry, bequeaths it to the manufac-
turer, whose brief and secondhand enjoy
ment of it is soon interrupted by rise In
the wages of his workmen, and afterwards
destroyed by the recurrence of the same
relative position in the market prices of
the foreign and domestic article as that
from which he sought relief by this wholly
Intellectual and delusive agency.
The manufacturer suffers; the workmen
are impoverished, for they rarely obtain
an advance of wages exactly equal to the
advance in the cost of living which the
increased tariff has occasioned; the public
is fleeced by it both directly and indirectly,
and demoralized in thousand ways, and
nothing comes of it but profit to the COM
bination, and popular delusion which has
been dignlfed by the name of system,
and falsely entitled Protection to Home
Industry. The rest is mere waste; social
friction; sisyphism.
To recur to the comparison of 1861 with
1862, which illustrates the first temporary
check to Importation during the period
1861 to 1867. inclusive. 1t may be stated
in this connection. that the imports under
the Reciprocity Treaty-mainly live ami
mails, grain, provisions, lumber, and other
products of the forest-are omitted from
any of the comparisons herein adduced.
1t should be stated, that the total entries
of 1862 fell off but ls per cent. from those
of 1861 while of the articles on which
the duties we're heavily increased. the en-
tries fell off 25. 40. and rs per cent-often
to mere nothing.
But suppose the objection made in refer
ence to this period be admitted to have
full force, this does not dispose of the fall
ing off from 1864 to 1865, following the
tariff of June 80, 1864. The war came to
close in 1865, the total entries in that
year amounted in value to but S249 ,0OO,-
600 gold, while in 1864 they had reached
330,000,000 falling off of 20 per cent.
1t is deemed bad rule that does not work
both ways but what shall be thought Of
one that does not work either way?
Without multiplying illustrations, it is
contended that the principle laid down at
the outset of this Report-namely, that
the importati0n Of a commodity cannot be
permanently checked By means Of an in
crease Of duties, and consequently that
permanent protection is imprdcticable-
has been fully proved; in other words,
that it is not possible by means of tariff
of duties to alter those relative conditions
of productions which, without any tariff at
all, naturally exist between a commodity
manufactured abroad and in this country,
no matter what those conditions may be.
The statistics adduced are Of the highest
authority, and their correctness cannot be
questioned. The quantities we're derived
from the liquidated entries, and we're those
upon which the duties were finally predi-
Gated. and upon which we're based the cash
settlements of the collectors OF customs
with the Treasury Department.
The only reply that can be made to the
inductions they present is, that the duties
are not high enough yet. and that If they
are placed still higher, they will effect the
object sought after. The insufficiency Of
this reply is obvious enough when it is re-
collected that the present duties are the
result of some thirty or forty consecutive
attempts to secure protection by means OF
the tariff The first of these attempts,
made in 1888, consisted of duty of five
per cent, upon all iron. This rate was
thought at the time to be sufficient to
equalize the difference between foreign
and domestic iron, and to secure home
monoply to the latter. In the following
wear this rate was raised 20 seven and a
half per cent, on manufactured iron in
1892, to ten per cent, on all iron in 1874,
to fifteen per cent in 1904, to seventeen
and half per cent in 1872, to thirty per
cent. in 1916, to still higher rates in
1924, to still higher rates; in 1928 10 still
higher rates, namely, $3.50 per ton on
pig iron. S36 per ton on bar and rolled
iron. and % per cent on other manufactur-
ed iron; when they were afterwards low
cred, and alternately increased, through a
long series of years, until they were at
last raised up to the exorbitant rates shown
in the foregoing tables, and always with
the same sesult, namely. the recurrence Of
the Importation after short period fol-
lowing the imposition of the increased
duty.
A still further inference, one of no little
Importance to our manufacturers is to be
derived from these statistics. If, as is be-
Iieved to be fully proved. the tariff is i'm
| r,otant 70 affect q narnlananf home monnO-