The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-03-12
AI,ttle Talk About Tariffs.

A Little Talk About Tariffs.
A correspondent writes us as follows:
RxrpsvrLLE. n. c., March 10, 1884.
To re Editor OF The Dispatch:
Evidently tariff which affords maxi
mum Of protection affords also minimum
of revenue. But the converse OF this pro-
position Is not so clear.
A tariff may be so high az to exclude
imports. and then there rs no revenue
whatever Here Is your maximum OF pro-
lection and minimum Of revenue. But II
the same tax yields the greatest revenue
and least protection, then tariff OF one
mill per pound on sugar should afford
more revenue than a tariff OF two and half
cents. should call one mill the minimum
OF protection; but you could hardly ex-
pect this rate 10 yield maximum OF reye-
nue.. II the tariff were reduced to one
mill importations would have TO increase
by twenty OF thirty times TO secure even
the present revenue from that article.
This would hardly occur, rs such reduc-
ton would cheaper the cost to the con-
sumer BY only about two cents, and sugar
Is so cheap now as 10 be within the reach
or all.
On the tafieoi every commodity brought
to this country there Is maXlmum-rev-
enue point. Above this mark there is
tendency 10 prohibition. Below 1t importa-
tions will not increase In the ratio OF tariii
reduction.
At the proper time we should diligently
seek these points, which, in the main, Will
be found below the present rates. Sucn
protection as this affords should be extend
ed TO American industries. When TINS IS
done we can wipe out the Republicso ma
chine called "Internal Revenue" and our
tariff revenues will be ample for all the
needs II the Government NORTH STATE.
We would remark that il what we have
set forth as an axiom is not true in the case
OF any particular article, 1t Is because TINS
country is not prepared TO supply the
whole home demand for that article. That
is true in the case OF sugar. This country
consumes annually million OF tons (2,2aO
pounds each) Of sugar. and produces only
30. 600 tons-not one twelfth OF what Is
consumed. But II this country were
prepared TO produce annually a million
OF tons OF sugar, then 1t would be
true OF sugar, as it always Is OF taril
law, taking it altogether, and stating gen.
eral principle, that tariff which yields a
maximum OF revenue affords minimum
of protection. Notice: we say that the
same tariff which yields the greatest reve-
nue. affords the least protection; and
North State T" thinks he denies the truth
Of that proposition when he says that
tariff of ono mill per pound on sugar would
not weld as much revenue as tariff OF .
cents per pound. Surely not; but this is
only saying that tariff Of one mill will
not Weld a maximum OF revenue; and II
IL would not do that North State has
not touched our proposition.
We did not say that tax Of one mill
per pound on sugar would produce the
maximum OF revenue from that article.
And IL II does not and cannot in the very
nature OF the case produce the maximum
of revenue, then it does not. come under
our definition OF a tariff that affords the
minimum OF protection. We said ex-
pressly that il was the tariff that produced
maximum OF revenue that afforded a
minimum OF protection.
II we take shoes, hats, iron, ready-made
clothing, cotton cloth, woollen fabrics
any article whatever-which the manufac-
turers in the United States are prepared to
produce in such abundance as to supply
the entire demand Of this country for those
articles. then it will be found that the rule
we have laid down is true. The maximum
of revenue from shoes, for instance, would
on the condition assumed result in mini
mum OF protection. Whyf Because the
maximum OF revenue from that article
could not be obtained without bringing |
into this country from abroad an immense
number Of shoes. In proportion to the
number imported the number made here
would decrease. The protection would
he exactly In that proportion