The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1886-06-04

oS"oJ, 90 Nv tho peSinuiuS OF the late war
The trainers of the Constitution evi.
IDENTIFY calculated that dutie, on import,
would be the chief reliauce for revenue,
becanse by the second clause of the tenth
Section of Article I. it is provided that
"no State shall, without the consent of
Congress, lay any imposts or duties on i'm
ports or exports except" &C., &C., clearly
showing that this power was left exclu-
sively for the Federal government.
Direct taxation was resorted to by tho
Federal government at the beginning of
the late war, aud many of our best and
most respected citizens in the low Counties
can testify to the spoilation and confisoa.
ton under it, which made them paupers.
The present internal revenue system of
direct taxation is heritage of the war,
and if had the power would wipe out
the last vestige of it, as would the war
tariff and imposts.
If, on the other hand, you mean by this
expression the tariff laws should bo so
equitably and fairly readjusted as to raise
the necessary revenue for the support of
the government, and at tho samo time as
nearly as may be operate upon all alike,
will unite most cordially with you. How
that can be best and justly done is very
grave problem. About tho sum of $780,
100000 must bo raised annually by taxa.
tion-partly internal and partly external.
OF this sum sls1 100000 in round mum.
bers was raised by duties on imports, s112,-
100000 by internal revenue taxation, and
the balance Of tho 1928, 100000 (total
ordinary receipts) was derived from sales
of public lands, patent fees, taxes on
national banks, seisniorage ut tho mint,
&c.
Now the present consideration is how
can this $1s1, 100000 derived from i'm
ports be SO imposed as to bear lishtest
upon consumers, or how can it be levied to
raise the necessary revenue aud unfetter
trade and commerce. Many os the indus
tries Of this country have grown up under
the stimulating or speculative influence Of
a high tariff, protective in many instances
aud yet raising large revenues, prohibitory
in others, and not bringing dollar into
the treasury. As unjust as this is aud has
been to the unprotected classes, it would
not be wise or proper to knock the props
from under such indussies with one blow
and bring them down in crash. 1t would
be more unwise and wrong to continue
this condition of things. What then is to
be done
My idea is that tariff taxation should be
gradually and surely reduced until We have
reached the point when each article will
produce the largest amount of revenue,
and then leave off, transferring from time
to time such articles to the free list as
should be found from experience to be
most conveniently spared from the revenue
list. Take for instance the article of
sugar. I insist that the present tax of 1t
cents pound-tbe average-is the rev.
enue standard, because it raises about $50, :.
100000 annually, paid into the treasury
on total value of s73,5OO,0OO worth i'm
ported-7O.9S per cent. ad valoren,.
II is claimed that this tax is protection
to the sugar planter. Grant it. So much
the better for the sugar planter, and that
is what I call incidental protection. He
receives very small percentage of pro-
lection, while the Treasury is replenish ed
with the tax.
Aud SO it is with rice, which pays into
tho Treasury s1,619,523.24 on a total
value of S2,134,18S.74 imported, 1888
per cent. ad valorem.
Now let me call attention to the duty on
cotton ties, as that is an article with which
all of our people ale familiar. The duty
on cotton ties prior to the last tariff re-
vision was 35 per cent. ad valorens, and
that is the duty to-day. It pays its share
| of revenue into the Treasury at that rate.
J,,...t what tho amount is will not stop ia
inouire, but I may say this is very fair
duty.
The Tariff Cc,mmission recommended
an increase of 80 per cont. on cotton ties,
which would have made 30 per cent
What would have been the eAe,Ht OF this
Not cotton tie would have been imported
and consequently not dollar would have
been collected on this article for the Treas
ury, because the tariff would have been abb
solutcIy prohibitory. But about $780,
600 would have been paid by the farm