Democratic Sentinel, Volume 17, Number 5, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 February 1893 — TO REVISE THE TARIFF [ARTICLE]

TO REVISE THE TARIFF

THE TARIFF OF 18-46 SHOULD BE THE BASIS. Hon. William M. Springer Gives Some Valuable Suggestions- -The Complicated Situation Into Which Reciprocity Dickers and Sugar Bounties Have Led lit ' How It Can Be Done. In the North American Review for February, the Hon. William MSpringer, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, gives some valuable suggestions as to how to revise the tariff. Hq thinks that the principles which governed the construction of the Walker tariff of 1846 should furnish the basis upon which the tariff may now be revised; because “a measure based upon such principles has already stood the test of time:” and because “the principles upon which it is founded are those which have received the sanction of the Democratic party in the past, and, if adhered to in the future, will make the pathway to tariff revision easy and the remedy for existing evils complete.” He quotes the following extract from,Walker’s report to show what the principles were: “In suggesting improvements in the revenue laws, the following principles have been adopted: “1. That no more money should be collected than is necessary for the wants of the government economically administered. “2. That no dutyshould be imposed -on any article above the lowest rate which will yield the largest amount of revenue.

“3. That, below such rate, discrimination may be made, descending in the scale of duties; or, for imperative reasons, the article may be placed in the list of those free from all duty. “4. That the maximum revenue duty should be imposed on luxuries. "5. That all maximurus, and all specific duties, should be abolished, and ad valorem duties substituted in their place—care being taken to guard against fraudulent invoices and un-der-valuation, and to assess the duty upon the actual market value. “6. That the duty should be so imposed as to operate as equally as possible throughout the Union, discriminating neither for nor against any class .or section.” Mr. Springer then shows that “the substance of these propositions has been iterated and reiterated in Democratic platforms and conventions from that time to the present.” He quotes statistics which show that from 1850 to 1860, under the low tariffs of 1846 and 1857, population increased 50 per cent., imports 199, exports 254, miles of railroad 512, manufacturing establishments from 123,000 in 1850 to 140,433 in 1860; capital employed in manufactures, 87 per cent. “But the most important, of all the propositions,” says Mr. Springer, “is that all specific duties should be abolished and ad valorem duties substituted in their place.” This rule was adhered to in the Walker tariff, which does not oontain one item which imposed a specific duty, or a duty levied upon the pound or quantity, but the duty was always imposed upon the article according to its value. This is the distinctive feature of the Walker tariff,as compared with all other tariff laws passed in this country. “In view of the early revision of the tariff laws of this country, special consideration should be given to the fifth proposition laid down by Mr. Walker, namely, that all specific duties should be abolished and ad valorem duties substituted in place. “Mr. Walker, in his report to Congress in 1845, demonstrated clearly that the operation of specific duties discriminates against the poor and in favor of the rich. He said that, if direct taxes were made specific, they would be intolerable. ‘Thus,’ said he, ‘if an annual tax of S3O was assessed on all houses, without respect to their actual value, making the owner of the humble tenement or cabin pay a tax of S3O, and the owner of a costly mansion a tax of but S3O on their respective houses, it would differ only in degree, but not in principle, from the same -unvarying spe-' eifle duty on cheap as on fine articles.’ He held that, if any discrimination should be made, it should be the reverse of the specific duty. He further 6aid: ‘The tax upon the actual value is the most equal and can only be accomplished by ad valorem duties.’ “The truth of these statements is clearly demonstrated by reference to some of the compound ad valorem and specific duties contained in the McKinley act.”

Mr. Springer then shows. that under the McKinley act woolen shawls imported in 1892 paid an average duty of 138.63 per cent., while champagnes paid but 57.29 per cent. “Thus,” he says, “by the device of specific duties, as embraced in the McKinley act, champagne, the greatest of luxuries, pays less than half the rate, according to its value, which is imposed upon the cheap woolen shawls which the poor women of the country must wear to protect them from the chilling blasts of winter. “No such rates as these could have ever been passed in a tariff bill which provided upon its face for ad valorem rates. They are only possible by a combination of ad valorem and specific duties, or by specific duties alone. The actual amount of the tax as compared with the value of the article upon which it is placed, is concealed. The McKinley act is a combination of such cunningly devised rates. To. construct a bill of that kind requires extraordinary skill and utter disregard of all principles of justice and even of common honesty. The McKinley act contains 32,000 words; the Walker act contained less than 6.000 words. The injustice and inequalities of the McKinley act are apparent at a glance, when the rates are applied to actual importations. ”