they should be compelled to pay only their part, according to their property. The present tariff compels me to pay, for articles necessary for my farm and family, from fifty to sixty dollars annually of duties on goods of different kinds. This is hardly thought of by those in power. They think farmers and laboring people can stand any taxation, while the Galphins plunder the treasury. Every farmer purchases annually iron and other goods, from one hundred to four hundred dollars, for himself and laboring people. Now, look at the amount of taxes we are obliged to pay; and if we could be relieved of this burden, we are all willing to be taxed for the support of the government according to the value of our property. Now, if I were taxed, say ten dollars, as my quota for the support of the general government, the balance I have to pay out annually as duty on goods would be a snug little sum saved. I read the Semi-weekly Union, and pay some attention to those things. About the time the tariff of 1840 was being repealed, the democrats complained of high duties, and leading whigs would tell us we had no reason to complain, as we had a duty on wheat. Now, that duty on wheat was put there to catch gudgeons. It is a mockery, and of no use to us farmers, and I hope you will recommend its repeal. I have spun this out so long, I fear your patience will be taxed to read it. I am, dear sir, your friend and fellow-citizen, President PIERCE. No. 5. WM. ANDERSON. BOSTON, September 20, 1853. DEAR SIR: Since receiving your kind note of the 2d, I have received a circular from the Secretary of the Treasury, to which I replied, substantially, that perhaps the simplest method of altering the tariff would be to take the law of 1846 as a basis, and reduce the duty by schedules-say C and D to same duty as E, which is twenty per cent.; F, G, and H to be free, same as schedule I now is, and ship-stores to be taken from bond free of duty. Personally unknown to the Secretary, I did not feel at liberty to take up his time by details very fully, and here subjoin some reasons, which, if of any importance, can be given to him. The reductions here proposed will simplify the tariff, and can be brought into practice with few instructions, and will be easily understood by merchants and officers. They will occasion little inconvenience to any interest, as the reduction on any one article is offset by advantages. For instance, woolens, carpets, and articles in schedule C, will be reduced from thirty to twenty per cent.; but this will be compensated by reduction on wool, and many articles which manufac turers use. Cottons, silks, and other articles in schedule D, reduced from twenty five to twenty per cent.; but this will hardly be felt, and will not lead to the import of any additional goods. The tariff of 1846, as amended by this plan, would be very plain and simple in detail, and stand as follows: Schedule A.-Spirits, &c., now 100 per cent. Schedule C.-Now 30 per cent. Schedule F.-Now 15 per cent. Or it would be per haps better to reduce A to 40 per cent., same as B; for so high a duty as 100 per cent. is always evaded in some way. Embracing most descriptions of manufactured goods, and most raw materials grown in this country. One uniform duty of 20 per cent.; thus saving all questions as to fabrics of mixed materials. Comprising many articles used by manufacturers, and other articles upon which the duty does not pay for collecting, and articles not grown or made in this country. All free of duty. Perhaps some articles might be taken from schedules C, D, and E, and put into the free list; but this would be hazardous, as the tariff of 1846 was carefully prepared, and all interests consulted. Should the revenue be yet found too large, this change of articles from twenty per cent. to the free list could be easily made; but it is best to keep on the right side, as another year may bring some commercial revulsion, which, by restricting credits, would materially lessen the amount of imports. The reduction of duty on wool and iron from thirty to twenty per cent., will be compensated by the reductions in duty on many articles which the producers of these staples consume, but far more by the increased price of labor in foreign countries, and consequent enhanced cost of production abroad. This is an important consideration in estimating the effect of reduced duties. There will probably be no increased quantity of wool or iron imported, and these interests will be as prosperous as now; but it is of the greatest importance to our builders of ships and ocean steamers, who have to come in direct competition with England and our manufacturers, who have to compete in all exports to foreign countries, that they procure these great staples on the best terms. It is thought by some that iron used for ocean steamers should be free of duty; but such exceptions are false in principle, and in practice lead to evasions and frauds. A moderate duty is far better for all interests. Ad valorem duties are preferable to any other mode, as they are in reality taking duty in kind, while specific duties are unelastic, making no allowance for variations in quality, or changes in currency, or cost of production. What is twenty per cent. at one time, may be ten or thirty per cent. at another. Minimums are clumsy to every one, and leads to evasions and restrictions. Moderate uniform duties are of great assistance to the shipping and commercial interests, as they allow merchants full range of foreign markets to make up return cargoes, and thus induce exports of our own productions. Commerce, to be advantageous, must have the two sides of outward and inward cargo; one leads to the other. The experience of England proves this, and twenty per cent., with charges of impost, is protection enough for any interest. The first of May would be a good time for such a change to take effect, as it allows the whole spring season for the sale of goods now ordered or on hand, and the bonded warehouse allows importers to leave goods there to await the change. My desire to see our tariff laws placed upon a simple and equitable basis, must be my apology for this letter. I am, dear sir, very respectfully, yours, Hon. CALEB CUSHING, Washington, D. C. SIDNEY HOMER. No. 6. NEW YORK, September 26, 1853. SIR: I learned, since my return to New York, that the Secretary of the Treasury is disposed to recommend to Congress an increase of the list of free articles. It occurs to me that to exempt the products of Cuba from duty would do much to promote the democratic policy in regard to that island. It would enhance the feelings of hope and attachment with which the native population of Cuba regards the United States, and the commercial intimacy to which it would give rise would accustom all parties to consider a political union inevitable, and so assuage the reluctance with which England and France, as well as Spain, contemplate such a contingency. The sugar interest of Louisiana would doubtless oppose such a measure; but the slave interest of the South would more than countervail that opposition, to say nothing of the formidable objection to monopoly which prevails throughout the country. But if it should be found expedient to compromise with protection in the matter of sugar, no interest is opposed to the free admission of tobacco and cigars. Whether cigars are exempted from duty or are subjected to specific duty, the honest importer is equally relieved; and this is the reason why I make free to call your attention to the subject. Besides, I am encouraged by the polite and intelligent attention which you bestowed on the affairs with which I engaged you lately in Washington. I do not address the suggestion to the Secretary of the Treasury, because I have no pretension to intrude myself on the department as a political counsellor, nor to occupy its attention except in cases in which my personal interest directly entitles me to do so. I forward to-day to the department one of the invoices referred to in our late interview, which has become subject to a penalty from which my firm claims to be relieved. Permit me to recommend the matter to your attention. I am, sir, most respectfully, your obedient servant, PETER G. WASHINGTON, Esq., ROBERT E. KELLY & CO. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. No. 7. NEW YORK, September 26, 1853. SIR: I was pleased to see the circular which you ordered to be promulgated, being occupied in a business which for nearly twenty years has brought me in contact with our various tariffs. I am a wine and spirit importer, and I will venture to say, without any contradiction, that the present tariff is the most obnoxious one we have ever had. I only speak as a wine and spirit importer. I do not wish to be considered an egotist, when I say that no man in our country imports as much high-cost wines as myself. It is not the quantity, but the quality, that my business consists of. I have not the smallest country custom; neither do I import for the trade, i. e. for our city grocers, who generally sell wines to country merchants. My customers are our wealthy citizens, and those of Philadelphia, Boston, &c., of every kind of wines, brandies, rums, gins, whiskeys, &c. My first and greatest objection is to an ad valorem tariff, which is almost death to the American importer, which I will in a few word explain. All wines, when coming from the vessel, show sea-sickness— a term generally used by wine men. I never show my wines until they have been in store ten or twenty days, and have become a little composed or quieted down. Now, for an appraiser to give the true value of wine when landing, is all nonsense. He can, I will admit, tell the difference between good and poor wines, but he cannot tell the difference between £50 or £60. Now, here lies the difficulty with us American importers. The foreign wine man from whom we import will send his wine to this country and consign it to some respectable commission house, invoicing it say £10 lower than he charges me for the same wine. For example, his £60 wine (which is his price) he will send at £50, saying that is the actual cost. You perceive at once our situation, which is £10 or $50: the forty per cent. upon $50 is $20. This much they will undersell the American importer; and this is the case with all wines and all kinds of spirits. I have frequently stated those facts to the late Mr. Clay, and he said he saw the difficulty an ad valorem tariff would raise with spirits and wines; but said it appeared the most equitable mode of collecting our duties. So it is, if all men were honest. I had several interviews with Mr. Walker when this present tariff was reported, and he thought on all wines and spirits a specific tariff was best. I have been an importer for twenty-five years, and I think that upon all articles that can be weighed, gauged, and measured, a specific tariff is decidedly the best; but I know but little about fabrics of any description, whether a specific or ad valorem is best; but they differ from wines, for all kinds of fabrics look best when taken from the vessel-wines, the opposite. Then some said it might cause a difficulty in regard to existing treaties with Portugal and other wine-growing countries. However, this is all moonshine. 1 believe Judge Bibb, when head of the Treasury Department, was rather taken in by the Portuguese chargé d'affaires here, in this manner: The Chevalier Figanière said that our treaty with Portugal permitted all their wines to come at the lowest duties of wine of any other nation. Well, what was the consequence? It admitted Madeira and Port at seven cents the gallon, because we admitted the common red wines of France and Italy at the same rate of duty. Well, I read the treaty, and as far as I understood it, it ran as follows: "The wines of Portugal and her colonies were to be admitted at the same rate of duties as similar wines of the most favored nations." Now, the word similar means the same quality. Now, the three standard wines are as follows: Madeiras, Ports, and Sherries. Consequently, Madeiras, Sherries, and Ports, should always pay the same duty, for the cost is about the same in their respective countries. I feel persuaded that I can suggest a tariff for wines and all spirits that will meet with entire satisfaction, although a few yet cling to ad valorem duties, and particularly our appraisers of wines and spirits; for every mark they draw a sample, and from every case of different mark take a bottle. Some of my wines cost on the other side from $25 to $30 a dozen, and they never return the bottle. This inspection is worth four times their pay. To take from the importer a bottle from each of his various marks, worth to him $3, is no small item. If the government officers take it, the government should pay the owner the cost. There can be amendments to our present tariff, most beneficial to the nation, if Congress will act honestly and throw politics out of the question. If I had only two hours' interview with the Secretary, I could so arrange a tariff upon the articles of my trade perfectly satisfactory, as a slight memorandum of what I would suggest would be this: Wines of Spain.-All Sherries and St. Lucars shall pay 20, 30 and 40 cents per gallon; and all other wines of that kingdom, 10, 15 and 20 cents per gallon. Wines of Portugal.-All Madeiras and Ports pay 20, 30 and 40 cents per gallon; all other wines of Portugal, 10, 15 and 20 cents per gallon. Wines of France.-All Champagnes and Burgundies, either still or sparkling, 20, 30 and 40 cents; all other wines of France, 10, 15 and 20 cents. Wines of Germany.-All Hocks, either still or sparkling, 20, 30 and 40 cents; and all others, 10, 15 and 20 cents per gallon. All Sicily Madeiras, Pico, Fayal, Canary, and Teneriffe, pay 20 cents per gallon. Then all wines not enumerated, such as Italian, Greek, and various other common cheap wines, from 8 to 15 cents per gallon; but all wines in glass, the duty to be paid upon the bottles. |