Year: 1869

manding any general assent to the answer or
answers made to it. The first difficulty en-
countered in the solution is found in fixing the
meaning and effect OF the word pays; the next
is, that very few persons see any question In
the meaning of the word. and still further
disturbance comes from the party prejudices OF
the people most earnest in the discussion. One
set of the disputants, proceeding upon the
general proposition that the consumer must
nav all the cost of putting commodities into
market, answers without doubt or hesitation
that the consumer must pay the prime cost OF
production and all charges, whether OF taxes,
imposts, insurances, expenses, and prohts' 10
the last farthng and, of course, must pay the
tariff duties upon foreign imports, all the wnie
never troubling themselves about the meaning
of the very important word pays, but assuming
that it signifies so much additional expense and
actual loss, or burden, to the last purchaser, or
consumer, who expends the article in his own
use and reproduces nothing from 1t. This
party assumes, moreover, that the whoter duty
is thus imposed upon the consumer without
any compensation or reimbursement, direct or
indirect, and that he must bear it as so much
diminution of his means of support. But 1t is
obvious that the question "Who paysW is not
settled until it is also answered, WHO re-
"ceiyes the duty 7" A payment is not fully
registered until it is both debited and cred
tied. A sum of money may be charged on one
account and credited on another account OF the
same individual, so that his payment is not in
fact made upon the first account, but virtually
on the second If as in the case OF the con-
sumer of foreign commodities, the party
charged with import duties is bound for the
support of the Government, and all the money
paid by him as duty upon such commodities is
so much in abatement Of his taxes as a citizen,
lie is then in effect only paying his citizen
taxes to the extent of the duties so paid.
From the year 1916 when the last direct tax
was levied until 1861, when the present system
was adopted, the whole expenditure OF the
Government was derived from the produce OF
the public lands and import duties, and all our
taxes were paid indirectly as duties upon for
eign goods.


Assuming this to be an equitable mode OF
distributing the public burdens, it is clear that
the, duties paid upon foreign goods became
credits upon the tax accounts OF the consnm-
ers. and were in no sense loss or burden or
diminution of the payers resources, other than



ing the time when imposts were thus made to
discharge our taxes, 1t was customary with
Anti-Tariff men to measure the public griev-
ance by the rate of the duties imposed. Secre-
tary Walker made an immense, and probably
an effective, display of Tariff percentages
when he was preparing for the overthrow OF
the act of 1912. He furnished Congress and
the public with statements showing up the
enormous rates of duty under the act, by re-
ducing the specifics to ad rdtorems, and lind
ing several hundred articles charged above one
hundred per cent-some of them, indeed, run
ming up to nearly three hundred per cent. His
estimates were generally extrayagant, and even
absurd, but the display answered the purpose,
and he succeeded in making change in which
only foreign liquors were rated so hIgh aS
forty to a hundred per cent with all other goods
=, tbirtv and below it. He practiced arith
n,otical iueelery, we say, but it is not of
his figures that we care TO complain
nor is il of the same sort of imposture prac-
ticed by our free-trade opponents that we COM
plain now. They may, if they please, state the
average duties of our present tariff upon duty
paying imports at 4S per cent, or they may
cipher the duty on chalk, as they do, up to
847 per cent, and other equally interesting
items rs much higher or lower as they like, so
long as they are forced to admit that the rates
are not actually prohibitory-sO long as the
evidence is official that under our present
rates Of duty we have imported in the last
three years foreign goods greater in gold value
by two hundred and sixty-eght millions than
in the three highest import years before the
Rebellion. This result contradicts all their
arguments and refutes all their complaints
against it as system of financial policy. In the
face of these figures all talk about prohibitOry
rates, restriction of trade, ruin of commerce,
is mere twaddle. Moreover, the old argument
that high rates bring less aggregate revenue
to the Treasury than low ones is equally well
disposed Of The total of the customs under
the tariff Of 1867, for the three years of its
operation, amounted to one hundred and forty
four and a half Millions while the three last
years, ending July /, 1868, yielded five hundred
and twenty Millions or rates which average
about 4S per cent yielded nearly four times
as much revenue rs those which fell a little
short of twenty per cent Defeated thus by
the facts on all the points that they seek 10
prove by their figures, we can allow them 10
figure away so long as they ciln afford to cut
the figure they do in making their dcmonstra-
tions. But we have different problem TO
submit to them aud to the curious In questions
of commercial regulations with foreign nations


The average market price OF EnSilSn oar
iron in New-York from 1913 to 1916, inclusive
the four years of the rule OF the tarit Oh
1si9-was s67 7' per tun S95 OF the cost was
the duty then levied which would leave to
the foreign producer, and all intermediates,