Year: 1859



 The opposition journals have made consi- derable ado about the position taken bv Mr. Buchanan on the subject of tariff, which they assert as being in conflict with the views of MT. Cobb the secretary of the treasury; and even some good democrats have bean led to this op position clamor, to inquire if the President is altogether sound democrat, in his creed on the tarff. So far as we have been able to discover and decide, the difference between the President and MT. Cobb is in regard to detail, rather than system, a difference in measures rather than principles; for it will be found, we think, that such difference of opinion exists among many democrats everywhere in regard to the practi- cal operations of so wide and intricate problems Tn political science as national revenue and protective tariff

 The Washington Union, in stating the posi- ton of Mr. Buchanan and the secretary. harmo- nlzes their views, in great measure, by showing that the seeming difference, is a difference as to the means and not the end The Union says that they both agree in declaring that imposs should be laid for the object of revenue, and not for the object of protection. They both agree that the least possible tax should be inn posed on the country in the form of tariff. In word, they both desire that as small a tax ation shall be imposed upon the trade of the country, as possible, consistently with the neces- slty of the treasury, and that whatever tax may be necessary, shall be imposed directly and inn mediately for revenue, afordiug no other pro- tectlon than what is incidental and conseouen. tlal from revenue tariff There are those who seem 10 think that specific duties are invariably protective, and that inasmuch as the President lncllnes to this mode of levying imposts upon sundry articles of commerce, he is a confirmed protectlonist.

 We have already denied the inference in showing that the President subscribes to the opinion that duties ought to be levied with the ooJect ot revenue, and not with the object of protection. The main proposition, is also un- true. The ad volorum duty, is a duty levied by per centage upon the value of artclea of importation, aud rises and falls as that value huctuateS.

 The specific duty is levied on the article with reference to its average value in the market, and remains fixed duty, whether the article rises or ialls. Ii the average price of an arti- Gle IS dollar and it is desired to levy duty of twenty-five per cent upon it, tariff law, framed on the ad voorum principle would de- clare that the articles should pay duty of twen- ty-hve per cent, while law framed on the specific duty principle would declare that the article should pay twenty five cents. Now, if the article went up to a dollar and a quarter, the ad vaorum duty would impose thirty-one and quarter cents upon it; whereas the spe- cihc duty would impose still twenty five cents showing that the ad valorum duty may be more protective than the specific duty Sa with regard to all articles. As long as they remain at ther average prices, the specific duty is DO more nor less protective than the ad valorum For men who seek revenue and oppose d pro- tective policy, to differ with each other on the subject of specific and ad valorum duties, is simply to differ as to the means of accomplish ing the same end. If both have been framed for revenue, an ad valorum tariff is just as pro- tective as specific duty tariff, when prices are at their average standard; it is more protect ve when prices are above their average standard and Is less protective only at times when prices fall below their average standard