Year: 1869




cinnati, on the 18th inst, to listen to
an address on the subject of reform
in the tariff, by Professor A. L. Perry,
of Williams College, Massachusetts,.
Professor Perry was introduced by
Hon. Charles Reemelin, and spoke
as follows:


1t seems that there are some gentle
men in Cincinnati who do not know
the difference between a revenue
tariff and a protective tariff. 1t seems
also that there is Senator from the
State of Ohio, of whom shall say no
disrespectful word, who can not
clearly conceive the fundamental dif-
terrence between them. The differ
ence is this: A revenue tariff is a
tariff, the duties of which are laid for
the sake of a revenue, and protect
i've tariff is tariff whose duties are
laid not for the sake of revenue. In
stead of being undistinguishable,
these two points of tariff are antagonis-
tic They are directly opposed to each
other. Now if tariff is designed for
revenue, the duties must be low, so
as to allow the foreign commodities,
on which the duties are levied, to
come in. If the commodities do not
come into the country no revenue is
secured, and consequently this causes
it to be fundamental truth, that the
higher the duties the more the protec-
ton, but the higher the duties, the
less the revenue.


Take for instance the article of
wooden goods. 1 have rhirty-four
samples in this package, and the du-
ties on these wooden goods are pro-
tective duties, and they are SO high
as to exclude thirty-three of these
kinds of goods. Only one kind-this
Astrachan-is imported at all into the
United States at present. And con-
sequently on these thirty-three kinds
of goods the Government does not
get penny of revenue, because the
goods themselves do not come in.
And therefore it seems to me that the
difference is very simple between a
tariff that is laid for protection, the
result of which is largely to exclude
the goods altogether, so that no reven-
ne at all is obtained, and revenue
tariff that allows the goods to come in
freely, only levying tax for revenue
purposes on these goods as they come
in.


You see at once the two ideas of re-
venue and protec tion are in antagon-
ism. The duties on these kinds OF
wooden goods exclude the goods alto
gether, and no revenue is obtained.
If the purpose be to give revenue to
the Government, what is the princi-
oal on which its tariff should be made
The principal is that the duties should
be SO levied as to allow the goods to
come in, and the more goods the more
revenue. Whereas the principal OF
the protective tariff is to keep the
goods out you only give protection
as you keep the goods out; or even ex-
clude them altogether, SO as to raise
the price of them and the price as
well of the domestic commodities
that come into competition with these
foreign commodities, as that the peo.
pie pay the higher price as well fol
the foreign as for the domestic goods,
thus compelling people to pay great
deal more than the Government gets,
which is a very poor way to raise rev.
enue. Take the matter of salt. We
imported last year 81, 900 tons of salt
and the salt that was inspected at
Syracuse was 100000 tons; almost as
much inspected at Syracuse alone as
was imported into the United States.
The United States realised on the salt
imported 81, ,291, ,702. But this is not
more than one half the amount of salt
consumed in the United States. There
is no difference between the price of
domestic salt and foreign salt. Con-
sequently, the people of the United
States in consequence of the protect
i've duty on salt, paid twice as much,
in consequence of the duty, as the
Government realised. Now any body
can see that that is very poor way
of raising the revenue, to make the
people pay two dollars where the
Government only realises one. There
fore, we say that where protection be-
gins, there revenue begins to cease,
necessarily. And therefore, the fun
damental and inalienable difference
between the two kinds of tariffs, that
the purpose of the revenue tariff is
revenue, and the purpose of the pro-
tective tariff not revenue at all, but
something entirely distinct, which end
is reached best of all when the goods
are excluded from the country, and
no revenue at all is obtained. So you
have the proposition the more protec-
ton the less revenue, and the more
revenue the less protection.


If we look into our present tariff
we find in the first place that there is
q large amount of revenue derived
from it. Why? Simply because the
average duties on dutiable goods in
our present tariffs 49 per cent. That
is to say, the Government takes al
most one-half of the value of all duti-
able goods imported into the United
States at one stroke, and then our pro-
tcctionist friends congratulate them
selves that the tariff is productive.
Of course tariff that takes one-half
of the value of the goods will be pro-
ductive when the people trade at all
unless the tariff stops all trade with
foreigners it will be productive. But
then, in any proper and true sense,
our present tariff is not revenue tar
iff. 1t excludes, as l have told you,
by far the greater mass of wooden