Speech of the Hon. ID. H. LEWIS,

 of Alabama,
{"newspaper_name": "State journal & flag.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5406, "word_count": 971, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9613000154495239], "ccnet_perplexity": [767.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Of Alabama,

 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED

 STATES, MONDAY JULY l3, ls46. On the Bill amendatory of Me Tarif zaw of

 ls42, reducing the duty oa Imports, and

 for other purposes.

 MT. LEWIS addressed the Senate as fol- lows:

 MT. PRESIDENT: From my position on the Committee of Finance, feel 1t my du. ty to present to the Senate the result of such conclusions as ] have been able 10 form of the merits of this bill, after a very nasty, and, of course, imperfect, examination of its provisions, and without the aid of much val. uabIe information which, with more time, could have procured from the Treasury De. part'nent.

 In attempting this duty, shall say noth- measure. As strong as are my convictions, and as deeply as l feel interested in that as. pect of the question, shall leave it's discus- sion in other and abler hands, conlenting myself with examining this bill as meas. ure of revenue alone-as means of meet ing the financial necessities of the Govern, ment.

 It may be readily conceived that princ- pal objection to this bill will be derived from the entirely ad valorem character of is pro. visions. It appears to De taken for granted, particularly by gentlemen who advocate high duties that ad valorems are but little to be depended on for revenue, and that in adjusting tariff at such a. rate as will give any considerable amour. of revenue, reli ance can be placed alone on specifies.

 This proposition is, in my judgment, one of those ax xomalic errors which, upon exam ina,ion, will be found to be.whoy f,llacious. think, sir. it will be found that ad valorem duties, which, it is admilled by all, are the f,irest, inasmuch as they are more open and better ndersfood-carrying the rate of the taxes they impose on their very face -are also best for all the purposes of reve nue.

 But, sir, under what circumstances of failure on the part of ad valorems to sub serve all the purposes of revenue, is this ob. jection brought forward? Al time when. by the report of the Treasury, s 5,722,sll of our present revenue have been derived from ad valorems. and only $l3,200.1le have been derived from specifics. Yes. sir, considerably more than one half has been derived from ad val rems, although coal, iron, hemp. sugar, molasses, salt, splr. its, wine. glass of all kinds, shoes, boots, and many other articles of heavy consumption, upon which 1t was attempted 10 give the highest protection, pay specific duties. Now, sir, before discreditng large source of our revenue, propose inquiring into the character and truth ofthe allegations which have bet urged against the ad valorem prin ciple.

 The chief ground ofo Injection to ad valo. rem duties is, that they furnish the import. CT with the constant temptation and opPor. iunity to undervuue his goods by returning false invoice. 1 ask. in reply, what temp tation ca there be to do this in the face of the heavy penalties prescribed by existing laws ?.--among which are not only very heavy forfeitures. if the invoice price be fix cd lower than the appraised value of the goods a the foreign market, however truly and innocently that invoice price may be stated. bul, If il be stated falsely and crimi nally, the heavier penalty of the State pri> soa awaits the offender. To suppose that false invoices would be made out under such circumstances, is to presuppose the tempta- tion of very great gain in case the fraud suc- ceeds.

 Now, sir, Ihold in my hand calculation of what the importer would gain even if he succeeded in passing his goods through the custom.house by false invoice. l will. for the information of the Senate, give the re- suits of several supposed successful attempts, to defraud the revenue.

 In each case, suppose the goods imported cost $l00 in the foreign market, and 20 per cent. to be the rate of duty; the importer would save, not the amount of the underudl aatios on his invoice, but the 20 per cent. duty on that amount.

 "Thus, if he entered his goods five per cent. below their value, he would pay not $2O duty, but $19 duty. Gain one dollar by the fraud-equal to s5-l00 per cent. on cost of goods and duty"

 .'If he enters his goods 10 per cent. be- low the,r value, he would pay not $20 duty. but SIS duty. Gain by the fraud, two dol> iars-equal to 7O.100 per cent. on cost of goods and duty"

 If he enters his goods 1 5 per cent. below their value, he would pay, instead of $20 du. ty, $17 duty. Gain, by the fraud, three dollars-equal to 2 55 100 per cent. on cost of goods and duty"

 "If he enters his goods at 20 per cent. below their value, instead of $20 duty, he woud pay $l6 duty. Gain, by the fraud. four dollars-equal to A 100 per cent. on costs of goods and duty."

 "Ifhe enters his goods at 25 per cent. be- low their value, he would pay, instead al $2O duty. SIS duty. Gain, by the fraud, five dolars-equal to 35-100 per cent. on cost ofgoods and duty"

 Now, sir, take it for granted. before no competent appraisers would it be possible for any importer to undervalue his goods more than 25 per cent. below their true valua- ton; and, therefore, the most that he could promise himself even were he to succeed, would be 4 35.100 per cent. I submit it to the Senate, if any man of sane mind would run the risk of the State prison, of loss of character and liberty, together with the heavy pecuniary forfei,ures affixed by the law, for the barely possible contingency of