The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-02-08
A Question Answered and One Asked.
Last week we said to the Charleston
Nesrc AMI lo3lrie-.


Acl,s and Courier:
I'VE suggest that the tarff which Yields maxi
mum II revenue affords minimum of pro, ection :
ana. conversely, that the tariff which affords a
maximum OF protection yields minimum of
revenue. Isn't this true? And If II Is true might
not the abolition of all internal taxes necessitate
reduction of the customs duties upon many arti-
clcs.'
Our contemporary seems to have missed
the Point altogether. 1t answers:
L. The proposition of the Dispatch Is not true.
In between the extreme points Of prohibition and
free trade, IL Is not the fact that The revenue
necessarily diminishcs as the rate Of duty ism
creased and conversely. The revenue, with
given rate of duty. Is affected by the coalition of
trade at home an abroad. and by other circum-
stances affecting the purchasing power Of different
countries. II does not necessarily conform 10 the
rate Of duty thoash the tendency ,s t 70 LARGER
finroraiions where duties ere high. Ia 1852 he
AVERAGE rate OF duty was 80 per cent, in 1865 Il
Duxlng The whole period the revenue from imports
increased In spite Of the increasing duties. Under
The 35-gerocent. arin In isS5 Inc revenue WIS q,
1872 IL was s2l6,37O,2S7. while there was no
mateTla, change IN The duties from 1872 70 1882,
The revenue from customs varied froiD eI3O,lfU,-
6s0Io s2l6,37O,2s7.
There Is nothing in our proposition to
which the foregoing is reply. Our pro-
position may be illustrated thus: A tariff
which yields maximum OF revenue from
sugar affords a minimum OF protection to
sugar; for the fact that large revenue has
been collected from sugar shows that
large quantity OF foreign sugar has been
brought into this country, and thus put
into competition with native sugar. 1t
shows that the American demand for sugar
has been largely supplied by foreign coun-
tries.
Conversely. tariff which yields maxi
mum OF protection TO sugar yields mini
mum OF revenue from sugar; for tariff
that Yields a maximum of protection must
keep out large quantity Of not TO say all
foreign sugars, and therefore must yield O
minimum Of revenue. II. the sugar comes
in, full protection Is not secured. If 1t
does not come In, there is no revenue
from il.
The Meas and Courier says:
ave now ask the Dispatch a question: Does
our contemporary advocate the abolition OF tne
tax on tobacco as means OF ensuring lower import
duties and will 1t advocate the removal or protec-
tive duties e the excise tax on tobacco should be
fboli>bedY"
We advocate the abolition Of the tax
On tobacco without reference TO the ques-
I t;on Of protection. That Is to say, we
would have the internal taxes abol-
isbed. and take the risk OF having all
the revenues raised by u proper tariff,
II would be for Congress to devise q tariff
tl,at would yield all the revenue needed foI
the support OF the Government. The Ners
and Courier, as revenue reformer, ought
to hold that high duties are prohibitory,
and Weld no revenue. But 1t seems to
hold the contrary opinion. II seems to be-
lieve that in order TO make up for the loss
Of revenue that would result from the abo-
ntionof all internal taxes, II would be ne
cexary to raise the RESPONSIBILITIES. Surely
the present cannot be highly protective
tariff II IL can be raised by 20 per cent,
and then yield larger revenue than II
now does. The tariff that protects to the
fullest extent Is prohibitory; because il
keeps down competition. Conversely, the
tlriG that protects TO the least extent Il
the one that admit the most foreign goods
We icon!d advocate such tariff as would
Yield revenue large enough TO make M
for the loss that would follow the repeal o.
NIL internal taxes. Strangely enough, tho
Neus and Courier holds that it would bt
necessary for us in that ease to favor .
higher tariff than the present. In otheI
words, our contemporary lie not sound
revenue reformer. We are willing TO acl
upon our theory.