Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-10-02
REDUCTION OF TAKiFIOV.
Fhe Democracy Asked for One
Hundred Millions.
The Unequal Relief from Taxa
alton Unjust to the South
and West

= AhO OAo4uAI tGeIlGI from IaXa-
alton Unjust to the South
and West
In
A few days ago, Hon. S. ]. Randall
Chairman of the National Democratic Elk.
ecutive Committee, addressed Hon. James
Brooks, very able and distinguished
Democratic member of the Ways anG
Means Committee in the present Congress,
a letter asking an analysis of the pre-.
tended reduction of Excise and Tariff
Taxes, and how and where the relief
would apply to the country. He an
swered in very able letter, which was q
review also of letter then recently
published by Senator Wilson, of Massa-
chusetts, on the same subject. Mr..
Brooks deyotes the first part of his let
ter to an analysis of the effect of the re-
duction in excise taxes. 1t agrees in all
respects with our exposure on the same
subject some two weeks ago, and we will,
therefore, not reproduce it now. But
some of his statements and Illustrations
concerning the tariff are interesting and
important, and are in the highest degree
reliable. They show how hollow and
insecure are all the professions of these
Republican leaders on these subjects, and
that every great measure theya have en-
acted has been 10 the interests of the few,
the monopOlists, and corporations, and
wealth-not of equal laws or of the peO-
pie. Read the following extract:
The Senator from Massachusetts at
tempts to throw dust into Republican
Western and Southern eyes by that reci-
tation of the reduction on tea, coffee, and
sugar, which you have quoted. Now, let
us analyze all this and see what there is
| in it that should pass current even in
''Buncombe," that famous county in
North Carolina, for which such addresses
are usually made. A family, consisting of
man, wife, and four children, say six in
family, will consume thirty pounds of
sugar, six pounds of coffee, and one
pound of tea per head annually. These
facts are statistically calculated, and may
be verified by every housekeeper. Now,
then, suppOsing the consumer does get the
benefit of the whole of these reductions
that have been made (Which is by no
means possible, the savings on the above
reductions for family of six in number
would be as follows: (After Jan. l, 1871;
for the reductions, instead of beginning
in July, do not begin till January next
only promised, as it were, for the cleo
lions, for Congress remeets in December):
On sugar, 80 TBS per head, $50 TBS,
| 4c................ .............Sl 80
On tea, l r. per head, 6 TBS, 10c... so
On coffee, 6 lbs per head, Sc TBS
&c. ............... ....... az
| Total reduction ...............S2 81
Now, the above named family will sd-
NIT that it buys one pair of blankets every
two years-Or say one-hslf pair year
for which it pays $3.50 per pair; and
surely they are not the best for that price.
These blankets, weighing q pounds a
pair, if they could be imported, cost in
England one shilling and sixpence per
pound, or, in our money, exactly 81 81
gold, per pair. Under a revenue tariff of
% per cent they could be bought in New
York by the consumer for $3.50 cur
rency, which clearly proves that if such
a tariff were adopted, the consumer would
| I Oh, e
the above named family would save
eighty-ive cents on the half pair
blankets it consumes yearly. The
aforesaid family of six will not
deny that they use annually six spools
of cotton thread, on which there is now
duty of SO per cent. Now, the best
six corded thread, which any housewife
knows is the cheapest, for strength and
every purpose, cost the housewife in some
places 10 cents per spool of 200 yards,
and in the largest cities cents per spool.
At duty of 25 per cent on spool thread,
every housewife could buy the above spool
of thread for AZ cents, currency, a spool.
This certainly proves that had such a
tariff been adopted, the above family,
numbering six, would have saved on the
six spools, even if they only pay cents
piece for them now, 81 cents per spool,
| or 81 cents. We further must assume that
family of six, using $50 pounds of sugar,
20 pounds of coffee, and pounds of tea,
annually, will certainly buy II yards of
alpaca, Orleans cloth, or woollen dress
goOds-suppose we say common alpaca,
for which it has to pay so cents yard, or
Is for q dress of u yards Now, we have
the customhouse authority, the merchants
authorities, and the authority of experts,
that yard of alpaca selling in New York
for so cents, costs, in England, nine
pence sterling, or Is cents, gold. 1t now
pays a duty of from IS to 8S per cent.
Under revenue of % per cent. it could
be bought by the consumer for SO TO So
cents-say the latter. The above family
would, therefore, save on the twelve
yards of alpaca had such 8 tariff been
adopted-15 cents per yard, or $l.S0. A
| family six in number, at the lowest cal
culation, will consume Sc worth of boots
and shoes annually. We have it on the
highest authorities-of the Eastern shoe
manufacturers, made to the late Special
Commissioner Wells-that if leather was
free, and trimmings subject to revenue
tariff of 25 per cent, boots and shoes
would Immediately become 10 per
cent. cheaper, which would give
the above family a saving
of 60 cents annually on the
| Sc worth of boots and shoes consumed.
A family using $50 pounds sugar, Sc
pounds coffee, and pounds tea, annu
ally, will certainly use so cents worth of
salt annually. Now, we may affirm that
if the present duty of los per cent of salt
was repealed "a duty which has enriched
the great salt monopolies in miIlions year
| W, there would be clear saving of 90
cents annually on the so cents worth of
salt they use. Let us now compare the
savings of the above FIVE articles, on
which Congress did not reduce the duties,
solely because members did not dare to
offend monopolists, with the pa.aded
savings on tea, coffee, and sugar;
Saving on half pair blankets annIy..$ s.
Saving on spOols cott0n............... q
Saving on II yards of alapaea......... l so
-. pc sc b,oE, e 49,.