The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-06-30
WHAT rs FREE TRADE7

In an article in reply to the structures Of the
Times upon the work Of the last Congress we
said "that strong free trade sentiment was
developed, looking to a tariff on sugar and
few other articles for revenue" This state
ment the Times reproduces, and proceeds to
shy In regard to IL that 20 free trade senti-
ment looking 10 n tariff on sugar Is very
singular kind OF free trade" The Times does
not give us It's ideas Of free trade, and we are
left to onjecture. From the remarks we have
quoted, however, we are led to believe that
the Times insists upon strict Interpretation.
A tariff on anything does not comport with the
Times ideas of free trade. We question If
even the old distinctions of metm et t,stn, would
commandment would not have TO be abro-
gated under the Times literal construction of
freedom In the matter OF trade.
We see nothing contradictory in our state
ment. The Federal government must derive
Its revenue In the main from tariffs, and
therefore some taxes of this kind must be
levied. This Is the case IN Great Britain. and
her free trade means that she has simply re-
strlcted her duties, with an admirable apprec-
alton Of what duties will best pay the govern.
ment and bear the least upon the people.
There are but half dozen articles that yield
the entire revenue of Great Britain, but these
half dozen articles are heavily taxed. Great
Britain, for political reasons, found it wise to
remove the differential duties on slave and
free-labor sugar but Of course the considera-
tions which would control us in this particu-
lar are different. We have special interest
to impose duty on this particular item
of sugar. In the first place, it is an
important article of produce with us:
in the second place we produce but one
seventh Of what is consumed In our own
market; in the third place we realize more
on the duty on this one commodity than on
any ether article of import. Sugar is q
necessity and no longer luxury. Our expe-
rience in regard to coffee shows us, however.
that we cannot remove the duty from 1t, indie
pendently of the protection idea. We re-
moved the tariff from coffee two years ago.
but the price of coffee was by no means low
cred. The only consequence Of the removal of
the coffee tariff was that an export duty
was Immediately imposed on 1t in the tropical
countries. Coffee was q staple article-so
much of it had to be imported anyway and
the removal OF our impost duties only oper-
ated the imposition of an export duty on it in |
the countries from which we derived our SUD-
ply. The same results would attend a re-
moval of the tariff on sugar. 1t has become
D necessity, and Is no longer luxury We
raise but one-seventh Of what is consumed In
our country, and that one-seventh is raised
oy free labor, and, If for no other reason, 1t
should be protected for this.
But the Times seems to think that all du-
lies are inconsistent with free trade; that
here must be absolutely no such tax IL rade
Is to be really free. To England, the great
pioneer and examplar of this principle, we
must look for instruction In this respect.
There we see that foreign imports, and even
domestic exports, are made to contribute q
quota to the public revenue. That principle
s universally recognized It Is the dppken-
ion Of the principle that constitutes free
rade For the most part In England these !
uties are imposed on imports so entirely
4 foreign origin and SO free from considera-
ions of competition with domestic industry
hat a large revenue may be raised upon
hem without disturbing the freedom or
guilty OF international trade. The immense
ustoms revenue of England is derived from
ca, coffee and tobacco, but the taxes on these {
ew articles do not interfere with commerce
T with any Of the nations economies.
This branch of the subject, however, we do ]
ot propose to discuss-all we feel called upon
o do Is to show the Times that some duties
n some articles are not incompatible with the :
octrine of free trade. Revenue must be raised
Or the state and this method of raising it has
ways been recognized in England, whence !
re derive the doctrine us well as the practical
pplcation of free trade. The measures by {
1hich Sir Robert Peel introduced free trade
4 the policy Of Great Britain went no further
han this. They removed from the tariff all :
rohibitions Of foreign import; but they re- {
aimed many protective regulations. 1t was !
My articles Of raw material of manufacture
nd others that were useful in the arts that
yere entirely exempted from customs duties.
he customs service has always been made
D support itself and contribute besides to the
ayment Of the expenses of the State, and we
ee nothing in duty on sugar that is incon-
ictnnt with fraa troda