Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-11
SATURDAY.. FEBRUARY IL, 1883
The Sugar puties-Aeain.

ton unless to show why the Democrats
of the South, and particularly those OF
Virginia. should not divide upon the
question OF protection. In adding
word 10 what we have heretofore said to
the State on the subject of the sugar
duties. we wish 10 be understood as dis
cussing the tariff question from our
neighbor's standpoint, though thephrase
"sugar duties appears nowhere in his
last article.
Our neighbor, not at all convinced by
the array OF official figurges which we
presented the other day, quotes ProiesR
sor PERRY again. The conclusions reach
ed are so extraordinary that We must let
our readers see the figures. We quote !:
"Customs duties amounted last year
10 S2l7. 900, 900. That represented an
average tax Of 46 per cent on foreign
goods valued at Si2S. ZOO, goo. Taking
Professor Perry's estimate, which seems
70 he very reasonable one, that we con-
sumo four times as much of domestic as
of foreign articles OF like kind taxed by
the tariff. our domestic consumption,
were there no increased prices conse-
ouent upon the tariff duties, would have
smounted to 81. 7j2, 900, 900. Thus with
out any tariff we would have Consumed
of foreign goods now taxed and oil
domestic goods now protected quantity
valued ST a., $50. 600, 900. Taking Virgil
MAS percentage of population at ~,
her people would have consumed OF this
quantity an amount valued at $50, 49,
COO"
All the personal property in State
that pays fifty-niue millions of dollars oil
tariff-taxes every year Is assessed at less
than a hundred millions of dollars
Besides, the people of Virginia of both
parties have agreed that she is not able
TO pay much more than half million OF
dollars a year in the shape Of interest,
nor more than twenty-five millions OF
principal in all. And yet here is our
neighbor gravely contending that Nir-
ginia pays out tiity-nine millions OF dol
lars a year as consequence of the Gus
toms duties. And all this vast burthen
of taxation is borne by an impoverished
people who need only adopt the policy OF
Free Trade in order to get nd OF all this
annual tax except six millions OF dollars
For an annual tax upon property OF SIX
millions of dollars, wouldrelieve Virginia
of a tariff tax of fifty-nine millions
Why, then, is our neighbor not Il
Free Trader? Surely he ought to be.
He is a good stump-speaker, and com
petent to defend ably his theories with
tongue as we'll as pen. But what reply
would he make. or could he make, to a
crowd of voters if Republican speaker
should charge him with denying that he
was Free Trader and vet with consent
ing to the perpetuation of tax of fifty
nine millions of dollars year instead OF
advocating the policy of throwing of
this intolerable burthen of taxation by
the simple and easy method OF imposing
o direct tax of six millions ?
We hesitate to write down our neigh
boris figures, so extravaganza do they
seem to us to be, and so unwilling are we
10 do him an injustice. But "things
are as they are" as DIR. SPmGd says
A tariff tax Of fiity-nine millions of dol
lars year is equal to a tax of say nearly
twenty dollars on every hundred dollars
worth of land in Virginia. The people
couldn't possibly pay one fifth of such
a tax. 1t would bankrupt the whole
Commonwealth. Our neighbOr must,
therefore admit that there is virtue
in a tariff-tax which does not inhere
in a direct tax. He must admit that for
some reason the people can pay five
or ten times as much of taxes in the
shape of customs-duties as they can pay
of taxes assessed upon LANDS, tene-
ments. and Entertainments Wouldnt
that be to "giye himself away p
Wouldn't that be new and unanswer-
able argument in favor of customs-du-
ties ?-nay, in favor ofprotection? The
States figures are so remarkable that we
feel compelled to quote them at lengt b;
alt seems strange when we compare
this sum with the Dispatches statistics
OF the annual production in this State
that this can be true. But We challenge
any reason for arguing that it is not as
true as it is that the people of the United
States consume taxed imports which,
furnishing revenue to the amount OF
S2l7, 200, 900 at an average duty OF &c
per cent, must cost III foreign countries
fully Si2S, 900, 900, and that they con
sumo fully four times as great quantity
OF domestic goods of like quantity,
amounting in value, less the increased
price consequent upon the tariff. TO
81, 752, 900, 0O0 WHAT'S true of the United
States must be true in due proportion of
Virginia But when we add 10 the Sl2S,
000, 900 OF foreign articles SIT, coo, 600
for duties the cost OF the foreign ar
ticles consumed in this country in year
is S6i5, 900, coo, and add To- 81, 752, 000,-
900, the cost Of the domestic articles,
SpVVsVvVfVVN, lOlt lltilSo bAc NuNtS, a
proper estimate for the increased prices,
and We have as the cost OF the domestic
articles $500 900. Taking the
foreign and domestic together the whole
cost is 81, 1856, 600, 900. yirginia's pro-
portion according 10 population. "a
per cent.-would be $50, 46l 900. Yet
this does not seem more improbable than
that Virginia pays 500. 1872, 900, less du-
ties and increased prices n the people
OF the United States did not consume
more than 500, 900, 600 worth OF foreign
articles which they imported. and fully
four times that amount in the cost OF do
inestic artIcles OF like kind. then what
became OF these foreign articles ? They
did not vanish by magic into thin air.
Strange indeed, neighbor. Let ussee
whether ii is true or not This whole
argument is based upon Professor PER-
nYs assumption that 1--WE consume four
times as much Of domestic as OF foreign
,xticles OF like kind taxed by the tariff. F"