New-York tribune., 1869-01-06
MP WEIIS,S RFpOPT


We have already alluded to Mr.. Wells's re-
port on the Revenue as one of value for the
facts it presents and the care with (which
its opinions on many points are formed and
stated. Some of its features deserve further
notice. Ii is doubtless one of the highest merits
OF apublic officer that he has Il sufficiently re-
ceptive intellect and comprehensive sympathy to
investigate conflicting theories with a due appre-
citation of the merits of both. But while this
is the proper condition of mind for inves-
tigation, something more is essential to execu-
tive action or recommendation. Inquiry must
result in conviction, or it fails of its purpose.
The highest type of cearness of intellect
cannot perpetually balance between opposite
opinions. Still less can it agree with both, like
the Dutch Justice, who could not help concid
ing fully with whichever attorney happened to
be then speaking. We welcome the impartiality
with which Mr.. Wells has collected his facts.
But we are surprised that they so often culmi-
nate in conclusions which seem to neutralze
each other. Thus Mr. Wells in the earlier
pages of his report takes pains TO argue that
legislative enactments have little or no inlu-
ence over the prosperity of the country; or to
use his words THAT legislative enactments and
conflicting commercial policies like the con-
"struction of piers and the deposit of sunken
wrecks, simply defect the current or consti-
"tute temporary Obstructions.' This doctrine,
which would sever all relation between political
economy and practical craftsmanship. he illus
trates by facts tending to prove that the low
tariffs of AZ did not diminish the prosperity of
our industry. Yet when he comes to speak of
the existing tariffs on pig iron, SALT and lum-
ber he abandOns his former theory and assumes
that these legislative acts do not merely "de-
(" fleet the current of our industry, but that
they diminish it's volume. Here are two wholly
opposite theories-one that tariff legislation does
not the other that it does affect, ma
tions industry seriously for good or i'll.
Again, while Mr.. Wells Processes full faith
that the policy of moderate and judicious
"pr otection under the tariff is certainly. for
"the present, the policy best suited to sub
"serve tho industrial interests of the whole
country" he casts unjust discredit on the
principle of protection. by assuming that the
high rate of our tariffs is due to the excessive
application of this principle. Now if
the Commissioner had made two sche-
dules-one of articles which we do not pro-
duce, and cannot, therefore, protect, such
as tea coffee, foreign fruits, spices &C.,
and another of articles which we do produce
and can protect such as iron. leather, glass,
and their wafes-he would have shown that at
the outset, about one-half of all our tariffs are
levied on such imports as, on the principle Of
protection Omy, would be on the free list. This
principle demands that such articles as we do
not produce shall be let in free, as emphati'
cally as that all articles which we do produce
shall, if imported, pay tariff In fact, a
tariff, however high, is only protective TO the
extent that it lessons the importation and stim-
uates the production of an article which we
have the means to produce, and will produce
under the influence of tariff. AS Mr. Wells
states that tea coffee, and sugar pay third
of our entire gold revenue. We can
not be far astray in saying that
at least half our tariff is levied for revenue
only aud in violation of the principle Of pro-