{"newspaper_name": "The North-Carolina standard.", "edition": "01", "page": "pNone", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5529, "word_count": 1012, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9433000087738037], "ccnet_perplexity": [1123.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
-


ministratons and to the State are levied and col
fIccted-all our land, houses and lots &c., being


taxed according to the 0alue IS a Dem0erGss'


principle because it is honesand just and because


it consuIts the greatest good of the greatest mum
Ibers g ss8y - ne


But, SAYS Mr. Haywood, the Gd v0lors"' prin


ciple is quite neao" to mel never heard OF d


before nv election to the Senate and ne then goes
on to say that "the uniform rule, as approved oy
the Government, has been heretofore, that of max
ing all the duties specific which can be made So


and let the others be Gd UaIOrens"-and he quotes
from Alexander Hamilton the father OF Federal


ism. in favor of specific duties. We proved last


week that this ad volOrem principle was not new


to any intelligent politician in the country; and
we now utterly deny that the "unlform rule" ol
this Government has been TO add to specifics and


diminish ad vakorems Now what are the facts


Including the present law this Government, since


its commencement, has enacted thirty-one Tariff:


laws; and in the very first law, and that passed,


be it remembered, when Alexan der Hamilton was
in office, there were sixty articles specifically tax
ed, ffv.siz taxed ad val0Tcnr, and sixteen Tree.
And in the second Tarif:law, passed in 1870,
there were seventy-two articles taxed specsc@tty,
one hundred and eleUen taxed Gd oaLOTem, and
twenty-five duty free. In 1916 the minimum
principle was first introduced-in 1928 it was ex-
tended; and this together with the specific system,
existed down to the passage of the present law,
with the exception that the compromise of 1888
anticipated a reduction, after nine years from its
enactment, to 20 per cent ad ralorcm. In addi-
lion to this, and in further proof of what we have
said, we quote the following from the New York
Journal Of Commerce, one of the most reliable
commercial papers in the country:


"Thus it appears that in every year since 1920,
OF and under every protective Tariff viz: the Tariffs
of 1916 1924, 1925 1882 1888, and 1872 more goods
have paid ad raloren than specific duties; and
that the aggregate excess Of all ad Valorem goods
imported during this period of25 years, is 1865
Ss3 or more than so per cent The proportion is
quite as large under the Tariff of 1912, as under
the average oflhe preceding Tariffs. The official
returns for 1S45 have not yet reached US, but we
see by Dixon H. Lewis speech in the Senate last
that the revenue which accrued in that
ear from ad valorem duties was $l5 722, 81 while
that from specified ntes was only $l3. .20O l1S. Ex
cess of ad vaorem tuIies over spec ic, last year,
So, ,522, ,693. In the years 1881, 1882, and 1888,
the revenue from ad valorem duties exceeded that
from specific duties, 81. $50 261. Other years, we
have no doubt would exhibit similar results"


so much for thai statement of the Ex-senator.


But, says Mr.. Haywood, let me tell you what
his terrible Gd UaLOrenS means. {" II is' says he,
& TO lay duties OF taxes upon goods imported from
oreign countries, according to the value of the
goods at the market from whence they come
he law fixing the per cent and the collector of it
scertaning the foreign value of whatever is tax
d, viz: the sum of the tax-for which he is not
to yOu but to the Treasury Depart
uenk" Mistaken again, Mr. Ex-senator, if we
re to understand you as referring either to the law
t 1912, to Gen. McKays bill, or to the present
lw. The law of ls42 directed the collector, not
, ascertain merely the foreign value" of the
rticlcs imported, but to cause" said value to be


appraised estimated, and ascertained" by COM
etent appraisers; and to add to such value or
rice sail costs and charges, including, in every
ase, charge for commissions at the usual rates,
} the true value at the port aohere tile same may
entered upon which duties shall be assessed"


he bill Of Gen. Mckay in 1874 so far modified


lis as TO "add 10 said value or price" only "the
,sts and charges which shall have been incurred


and at the place of exporaton"-and that bill,
"OOu3 ICII IHC l.,
II of ls42 in this respect as it was with the ex
option just noticed. The present bill, after d. t
cting how the foreign market value of the arti-
es shall be entered, provides that there shall be
lded thereto all costs and charges which, under S
listing laos the law of ls42I would form part .


the true vGtue al the port There the same mag


entered, upon which the duties should be as P
ssed"-and it is furthermore provided that the II


lector shall "cause" to be appraised and esti- II
ated the value of all articles {. in accordance il
ilh the provisions of existing lor0s" And vet "
r. Haywood, following inthe footsteps of Messrs N
'cbster and Crttenden, calls this " toreignp valu-
ion. The truth is, it is home valuation-for II
hat says the law2 The !" true value at the port al
here the same mag be entered" Home valua- G.
m is this: If for instance, ton Of pig iron is
'ported which cost in Liverpool twenty dollars, 81
at is the value in a foreign market. On being oi
tered in New York, five dollars are added for e.
'ight and two and half per cent. for commits
ms, &C. The home valuation will then be $50 G
the iron, five dollars for freight. fifty cents for NJ
&c.-making in all twenty-five dol 4.
IS and fifty cents; whereas, if the duty was al
aced on the "foreign'' value, as Mr.. Haywood es
pposes it would be calculated on $50, instead nc


$3.50. cr
Mr.. Haywood is pleased to say, that the collec til


l. IA u