« ForrigeFortsett »
portion of the resolution of the Senate could those before stated, would diminish his reducnot be complied with, because the statement of tion to $4,799,516.' But it is estimated that the the revenue is made up for the calendar, and effect of cash payments, in raising the price of not for the fiscal year. This last fact would in- goods, and the bounty to ships and steamdicate that the Secretary had studiously selected boats, as proposed by the Secretary, are equal the fiscal year instead of the calendar, and that to a duty of $1,770,000, which sum should also with no small trouble!! Quere? Can any other be deducted from his estimated reductions; reason be assigned than that, because, in con- which, taken from $4,799,516, being the sum sequence of the tariff of 1828, the fiscal year of of reductions stated above, would bring down 1830 was the year of the greatest commercial the reductions to be effected by the Secretary's depression; and, as such, was better calculatad scheme, to $3,027,516!! which appears from the to make the impression that this scheme had re- data given by the Secretary himself.! So ally reduced the revenue to the wants of the go- much for errors. vernment-which of itself, taking his own cal There are other circumstances which ought culation of the sum required for the service of to be taken into consideration. The object of the government, and making no allowance for the Secretary appears to be not only to swell
ther errors, will give a surplus revenue to the the amount of the reduction of duties, under amount of $5,605,000.
his scheme, but also to present as small an in
come from duties as possible. With this view We published some time ago, a tabular state- he has selected for his estimate the year at ment correcting the errors of the Secretary's which our commerce was the most depressed calculation, and yesterday another, in reply to by the tariff of 1828. He takes the accrued an article in the Globe, in defence of the scheme duty of the year ending the 30th September, in which the correctness of the former state- 1830, which amounted only to $26,320,000; but ment is maintained, and a new error of more if he had taken the year ending on the 31st Dethan one million of dollars, in the Secretary's cember, 1830, which would seem much more calculation is pointed out.
natural, the accrued duties would have been . It is our purpose now to give a summary and $28,382,000-rather more than two millions condensed view of the whole.
more than the year which he selected!! and The Secretary estimated his reduction of the which would have increased the calculation of present duties at $10,976,007, (nearly eleven the income of the duties proportionally. Had millions of dollars.) It is shown by the state. he even taken the preceding year
, ending the ments which we have published, and it is now 31st of December, 1829, the accrued duties in fact conceded, that from this sum there ought would have been $ 27,542,000; more than one to be deducted 4,665,491, on account of du- million over the year which be selected. ties repealed by the act of May, 1830, re But to present it in a more striking point of ducing the reduction of the Secretary to view--had he selected the subsequent year
ending on the 31st December, 1831, the accrued Again: the $10,976,007, which the Secretary duties would have been $36,851,162, exceedestimates will be reduced by his scheme, as ap- ing the year he selected 10,531,000 dolpears by a tabular statement submitted by him lars, notwithstanding the act of May, 1830
, had to the Senate, are reductions on the duties which reduced the amount of duties accrued, in that accrued during the fiscal year ending on the year, at least three millions of dollars, which, 30th September, 1830—that is, he has estimat- added to $ 10,531,000, would give an excess ed on the amount of the bonds taken for duties, of duties accrued in that year, of 13,531,000 and not on the actual receipts into the treasury. dollars over that selected by the Secretary, But it is well known, that the duties received But the Secretary, or the Globe for him, are much less than the bonds as goods upon re bjects to the year 1831, on the ground that exportation, are entitled to drawback—that is, it was a year of reaction, and that the inn to have the duties refunded. To ascertain the ports would accordingly exceed that of aver: amount of duties to be received, the drawbacks age years ; but it is surprising that it had must be deducted from the duties accrued.
not occurred to him, that the preceding years Having premised this statement, it must be must of necessity have been years of depres apparent, that a greater amount of drawbacks sion, and, of course, would be as much bewill have to be deducted on any quantity of low the average. It seems not less surprising, goods reshipped, when the duties are high, than that he, who objects to the year 1831, as above when they are low. As for instance, taking the the average, should with such curious felicity present duties to average 45} per centum, and have selected the very year, at which the dethose proposed by the Secretary at 26}, the pression was the greatest; and that it had not 'difference in the drawback on the reshipments occurred to hini, that an average of the years of the goods bonded in 1830, under the '29, '30, and '31, would have approached far reduced duties, would stand in the same nearer to the truth than the year selected by proportion as 45} to 264, which would him. Had he taken the average and had allow give 2,260,000 dollars as the drawbacks, ed for the reduction by the act of May, 1830, being 1,521,000 dollars less at the rates of he would have found the average duties accrua duty proposed by the Secretary, than at the ed during the three years to have been uprates as they are now, for which the scheine wards of $31,200,00, exceeding the year'ser makes no allowance, This correction, with lected by more than $,5,605,000.
We do not intend to assert, that these errors 1st January, 1829; on cocoa, per act 20th May, and miscalculations, gross as they are, were de- 1830, on the 1st January, 1831; consequently signed; but whether intentional or not, they are no portion of the duty under the repealed acts calculated to shake the confidence of the coun- could be payable in 1832. The duty payable try in the official statements of the Treasury in 1832, on salt imported in 1831," which has Department, and in that view to do much mis- been repealed by the act of 291h May, 1830;" chief. Nothing can be of more importance which act made no provision for refunding the than that all official papers should be drawn duty on the quantity in the public stores on the with extreme care, so as to present the most 1st January, 1832, estimated at $136,562 50 accurate results-neither exaggerating or dimi Relative to the “« amount which will proba. nishing in any respect for party, or any other bly be received in 1832,” on account of the purpose. When such is the case, they present duties on coffee and tea, which have been rea certain basis of legislation; but when we find pealed by the acis of 1830, "an estima e cansuch gross errors as this scheme contains, cr- not be formed without special returns froin the rors so great that the estimate of the revenue, Collectors of the Customs.' They will be re. under false estimates, falls short at least one- quired, although it will take some time to obthird of the entire amount estimated, confi- tain them, should it be deemed necessary, dence must necessarily be destroyed.
Permit me to observe, that it was found imThere is one circumstance which requires ex. practicable to furnish, within the probable ex. planation on the part of the Secretary. He was pected time, the information required by the called upon to give a comparative statement, resolution, for the year ending on the 30th not only of his own scheme, but also of the pro- September, 1831. It is exhibited for the year ject reported by the Committee on Manufac- ending on the 31st December, 1831, the calentures of the Senate. His statement is very dif-dur year, being the period for which the reveferent in regard to the two. In his own, he nue accounis have been inually prepared makes no allowance, as has been shown, for the from corresponding entries, made in thiş office reduction under the act of May, 1830. He esti on the collectors accounts adjusted at the Treamates on the accrued duties, instead of those sury. I have also to remark, that the sums that are received, and takes the year ending on above stated as the gross and nett revenue the 1st of September, 1830. On the contrary, which accrued in 1831, may be, to a small in giving a statement on the project of the Com- amount, varied by the final adjustment of ac. mittee on Manufactures, he takes into estimate counts now in the course of settlement. the reduction by the act of May, 1830, he calcu I have the honor to be, Sir, lates on the duties received, instead of those ac
Your obedient servant, crued, and takes the year ending the 31st De
T. L. SMITH, Register, cember, instead of the year ending on the 30th Hon. Louis McLaxe, Sec'y Treasury. September, 1830. Why this difference? 'In illustration of what we now say, we call the at FROM THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER. tention of the realer to the article from the The difference between Mr. McLane's calculaIntelligencer, and the reply given in the Globe tions, as to the effect upon the revevue, by of the 24th inst., which is appended to this arti importing goods free of duty under the se. cle.
nate's bill reported by Mr. DICKERSON, and
his own bill reported to the House. TREASUUT DIPARTIENT,
It will be remembered that early in the pre
sent session of Congress, Mr. Clay brought into Register's Office, May 24, 1832.
the Senate a resolution, declaring it expedient Su: In compliance with your reference to to reduce the revenue for the future by repeal. this office, of the resolution of the Senate of the ing the laws imposing duties on imported mer10th instant, I have the honor to state that the chandise, which did not come in competition gross revenue which accrued from imports and with the products of this country. After a long tonnage, in the year ending on the 31st Decem debate, and a modification of the resolution, it ber, 1831, amounted to $36,851,162 68
went to the Committee on Manufactures, and
they reported a bill in accordance with the prinThat the nett amount, after de.
ciple embraced in it, proposing to admit the ducting the expenses of col
kinds of goods hereafter named, free of duty. lection $1,177,164 90
The Senate then passed' a resolution, directing and drawbacks,
the Secretary of the Treasury to report to that bounties, &c. 5,222,624 67
body how much the revenue would be reduced 30,451,373 11 by that bill, if it became a law. In compliance
with that direction, he, on the 18th of April, No returns have been made from which an made a report, which is published, and numestinate can be formed of the gross revenue bered 125 among the documents of the Senate. which will accrue in 1832.
This report, it appears on the face of it, was The gross revenue which accrued in 1830, to take the place of one made earlier, in which
28,524,622 61 some errors had been discovered, and therefore And the nett revenue
22,697,679 46 stands before the public, as a labor cautiously • The reduction of duty on wine, under the performed. It represents the entire reduction act of the 24th May, 1828, commenced on the which would be made by the Senate's bill to be
$2,168,239; but the footing is erroneous, and Prunes and Plums 3,615 3,476 the true amount is $1,668,010. The advocates Figs
29,216 48,014 of the resolution and the friends of the bill, bad Raisins
281,287 222,547 been led to believe from the information in their Ginger
41 possession, that the reduction would be much Cayenne pepper
51 Subsequent to these transactions, the Secre- Nutmegs
33,525 33,881 tary reported a bill, in compliance with a reso- Cinnamon
1,061 6,961 lution of the House of Representatives, in which Cloves
4,149 20,245 he, affecting to be mediator, proposes a new Pimento
30,562 114,913 modification of the tariff, and a large reduction Cassia
7,927 22,591 of the revenue. This bill was followed by a +Black pepper
182,076 paper from the same source, called “ą compa- Camphor
4,003 8,551 rative statement, showing the amount and rates Indigo
175,282 185,347 of duties under the present tariff and that proposed Linseed Oil
1,726 4,716 by the Secretary of the Treasury, calculated upon Corks
14,478 16:467 tħe importations of the year ending' the 30th of Brass in plates 1,750 1,750 September, 1830.”
Tin in do
63.200 64,409 The statement reported to the Senate was al- Opium
8,191 23,033 so made upon the importations for the the same. Flax
5,695 13,197 The basis of the two papers appears to be the Cocoa,
10,392 52,649 same; the object in both cases is to ascertain Crude Salt petre 4,954 4,429 how much the revenue would be reduced by Bristles
2,945 3,467 importing certain articles free of duty. These Quicksilver
3,417 51,837 articles are named both in the report and in the Quills prepared 4,108 4,367 comparative statement, and nothing more was Side arms, &c. 57,000 14,929 Decessary than to ascertain the amount of du SDye stuffs, drugs, &c. 100,000 100,000 ties for the year to which the Secretary limited his inquiry. This would seem to be an easy
1,668,010 6,657,601 matter, as the evidence of the amount of du- Comparative statement made by Mr. ties must be matter of record. There ought,
McLane for his own bill, to show therefore, to be no variation in the two state its effect on the revenue ments touching the same articles for the same Statement in answer to the Senate's
$6,657,601 period of time. But singular and unaccountable
resolution, by Mr. DicLane, to as it may seem, there is scarcely an item in the
show the effect of their bill upon two documents which correspond. They run so
1,668,010 wide of each other, that while one shows a recerction of the revenue of only $1,668,010, the Difference in the two statements, other shows a reduction of $6,657,601 on the same articles of merchandise, though in both
both founded on the imports of cases to be imported free hereafter. That the
1830, and relating to the same arreader may judge for himself, the two state
ticles hercafter to be imported
free of duty ments, both made by the Secretary in his offi
$4,989,591 cial capacity, and the one laid before the Senate and the other before the House, are placed side * A duty of half a cent a pound is proposed by side in figures, as copied from the two do- to be retained on coffee by Mr. Secretary ; the cuments. On which of these two papers, lead-Senate bill admits it free ; consequently, the ing to results differing so materially, are we to whole duty should have been set down in the rely? This is a matter of great and interesting report upon their resolution. To place this moment; and the Secretary, who posseses every matter as it should be, I have made an allowmeans of correct information, proves that a bill ance for the half cent duty, of the Senate, which proposes to let the articles * In his statement in answer to the resolution named into the country free of duty, will dimi- of the Senate, the Secretary states in a specific nish the revenue only $1,668,010, while a bill manner the duties on this article for several framed by himself, proposing the same thing, years; but in his final calculation of the amount will diminish the revenue $6,657,601? What of reduction, omits it, because he says the drawexplanation can be given of this matter? The back in 1830 more than equalled the import. reader can compare each item, and solve the # The exact amount of this article is not put difficulty if he can.
down in the comparative statement, but it is
Statement said to be 25 per cent of the sum set against Statement in sent in by the side and Fire Arms,” which is only $10,929. Articles. answer to the Secretary, $ These articles are not enumerated in the
resolution of with his own answer to the resolution, nor is there an esti
the Senate. bill. mate under precisely the same denomination in Teas
398,975 2,821,562 the comparative statement. It is not easy to *Coffee
387,934 28574,412 tell, therefore, what they are intended to be Almonds
26,865 35,055 estimated at in the last document. They are Currants
5,661 21,826 consequently, set at the same sum here.
FROM THE GLOBE.
after his long experience, we cannot doubt; Explanation acounting for the difference between and that he has undergone some change of views
Mr. Mc Lane's Report to the Senate, and Mr. as to the tariff itself, in the long interval of sixDickerson': Bill, and that of his own Bill re-/teen years, we think highly probable; but that ported to the House:
he ever defended or supported a protective ta. The statement to the Senate exhibited a re- riff, as distinct from a tariff for revenue, there duction of $2,168,039, upon the nett revenue of is not the slightest evidence, and we believe to the articles therein specified, after deducting be utterly false. That the tariff of 1816 was drawbacks on exportation; and the calendar really a revenue tariff, cannot be doubted. It year of 1830 was taken as the basis of calcu- came from the Committee of Ways and Means; lation.
it great! reduced the existing amount of duThe duties on teas, coffee, and cocoa, were ties, and it fixed the scale no higher than the calculated at the present rates,
public wants required with the existing debt. The statement to the House of Representa- But while it was a revenue tariff, it afforded an tives embraced the entire imposts, and exhihited incidental protection to the manufacturers of the gross revenue for the fiscal year, commenc- the country—an incidental protection at which ing the 1st October, 1829, and ending 30th almost every public man rejoiced—as it was alSeptember, 1830.
most universally felt that much was due to the if the writer of the article in the Intelli. new direction which the restrictive measures gencer" of yesterday, will ascertain the differ- and the war had given to the capital of the ence in amount of duties on the articles above country. mentioned, between the present and the former
But Mr. Ritchie relies upon Mr. Calhoun's " rates, and will also deduct the probable amount speech as proving that he was in favor of a profor drawbacks, he may the be reconciled to the tecting tariff
. It is true that Mr. Calhoun exapparent difference between the two state- pressed himself warmly in favor of the manu
factures of the country, as he now and has al
ways felt towards thein. He never has doubted MR. RITCHIE, MR. CALHOUN, AND THE
their beneficial effect. His objection has been
to the means of advancing them to laying on, TARIFF OF 1816.
under the name of imposts, duties without He who makes a charge against another, reference to revenue, but solely for the object ought himself to be free from offence. Mr. Rit- of advancing the interest of one branch of inchie andertakes to accuse the Vice President on dustry, at the expense of another; and we dea charge of inconsistency in reference to the ta-fy Mr. Ritchie to point out a single sentiment riff, while he is guilty of inconsistency himself
, in all that Mr. Calhoun said in favor of manuin reference to the same subject in the most facturing, which would give the least counteodious form~a form which can neither be jus- nance to the opinion that he believed a protectified or excused. The wisest and most virtu- tive tariff, as separate from one for revenue, to ous men may entertain different opinions at dif- be constitutional or just. He has not attempt: ferent times, and long intervals; in fact such di- ed to point out any such; but, on the contrary, versity would seem to be the natural result of has rested his accusation simply on the ground our limited intellect when applied to political of what Mr. Calhoun said of the beneficial subjects, many of which can only be solved effect of our manufactures. According to Mr. by time and experience. A public man would Ritchie's logic, to recommend a measure on aclive in vain-we must be more or less than man, count of its incidental advantages, is, in fact, to if sixteen years of action and busy life did not assert, not only that the immediate subject of modify and change many of his opinions, and legislation is constitutional
, but that the incihe would be dishonest
, if such charges did not dental would also be constitutional, as a direct affect his course. But what are we to think of object of legislation. those inconsistencies which exist, not at different Let us illustrate. Suppose a tariff, for reperiods of life, but in the self same moment, in venue, to be under consideration. Suppose it the self same individual? They must be the to be proposed to lay a duty of 20 per cent. effect of stupidity or dishonesty. Such is Mr. upon books, and suppose that a member should Ritchie's case. He who denounces Mr. Cal- move an amendment to reduce the duty on houn for entertaining different opinions on bibles to 10 per cent., and would support his the tariff, after an interval of sixteen years, motion on the ground of the highly beneficial zealously supports Mr.' Van Buren, who was effect of the bible on the religion and morality known to be the decided advocate of the ta- of the country. Mr. Ritchie would not doubt, riff system. He objects to Mr. Calhoun be- the argument would be a fair one; and yet, accause he voted for the tariff of 1816, and sup. cording to his logic, the mover would be commitports him who voted for the more obnoxious ta- ted in favor of the constitutionality of legislating riff of 1828!!
on the religion and the morals of the country, But we would be sorry to rest the defence of both of which are clearly beyond the constituMr. Calhoun on the conviction of Mr. Ritchie. tional power of Congress. This is analagous to the He would scorn to justify his course by the tergi- case of Mr. Calhoun. He found the House hesiversation of the latter. It stands on a more so tating as to the rates of the duties, and though lid foundation. That Mr. Calhoun's views have few could doubt but that the money was rebeen modified, and in some respects changed, quired, and as the the most efficient moed of
reconciling them to the bill, he represented the which Mr. Ritchie has grossly misrepresented
troduced and supported by him, rejected by By way of illustration, and to show the real Mr. Madison, and to have the weight of his auopinion of Mr. Calhow, in regard to the tariff,thority thus to bear against him; but we are of in an incidental discussion in the year 1813, on an impression that this circumstance, fairly a motion ot Mr. McKim to prohibit the introduc- considered, ought not to produce the impression tion of foreign goods, with a view to the encou- which it has done. Mr. Calhoun was the chair: ragement of domestic manufactures, Mr. Cal- man of the committee to which that portion of houn opposed the motion, on the ground that Mr. Madison's message which related to interthe war itself was giving much more encour-nal improvement, was referred; and we hold it agement than was desirable, and that, on the impossible for any impartial mind to read that return of peace, we would find ourselves
of the message, and to compare it with ly embarrassed by the new direction which the the provisions of the bonus bill
, and to assert capital and industry of the country had receiv- that the latter went a single inch beyond the ed, in consequence of so great an encourage- former. We give an extract from the message: ment--that our true policy was to permit the it is as follows: introduction of goods as freely as possible to di “ Among the means of advancing the public minish this embarrassment; but, while he a interest, the occasion is a proper one for recallvowed these sentiments, he would be found, ing the attention of Congress to the great imwhen peace returned, disposed to afford to the portance of establishing throughout our counmanufactures proper protection, in the adjust-try, the roads and canals which can best be loment of the tariff. In pursuing the course cated under the national authority. No object which he did in 1816, he bat fulfilled this de- within the circle of political economy, so richly claration. His remarks in 1813 do as much ho- repays the expense bestowed on them; there nor to his sagacity, although just entering into are none, the utility of which is more universally public life, as his course in 1816 did to his li- assented to and acknowledged; none that do more berality and sense of justice. We trust that honor to the Government whose wise and Mr. Ritchie is answered on the subject of the enlarged patriotism duly appreciates them. tariff; but the tariff is not the only subject on Nor is there any country which presents a field!