Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

CUSTOMS DUTIES.
In endeavouring recently to point put the.
fallacy involved in attacking the Custom- ;
House under the banner of Free Trade we
promised to discuss, on its merits, the doctrine
that it is inexpedient to raise revenue by means
of duties imposed on goods imported from
abroad. The first step in the process will be
to distinguish, the true revenue duties from
other imposts which the Custom-House is
often made the instrument of levying, and
which, being based 011 essentially unsound
principles, are altogether indefensible. In dis
cussing the propriety of raising taxes in the J
shape of Customs, it is obviously necessary to
get rid of all the confusion of idea which is the
result of confounding together things that
differ.
The first of the great indirect purposes
which Governments have often sought to
accomplish by means of the Custom-Ho use
to which wo will refer, is te foster some parti
cular branch of home industry. This is do lie,
or rathc-r is attempted, by the imposition of
protective duties. The article, whateror it may
be, whether the growth of the soil or the -pro J
duc-t of industry, is subjected to a heavy duty J
whenever imported from a .foreign country, I
primarily for the purpose -of giving an 1"
advantage to the home, grower or pro-1
duc-er. The direct object of such imposts]
is to put the foreign dealer iu it positisa efl
disadvantage iii the home markets, in order to
enridh the persons who deal at home in that
kind of commodity. Sometimes . the same
principle is applied for the benefit, as is sup
posed, of colonial dependence-S, tbe goods they
produce being admitted into the mother
country duty free, or at «lower rate than si- |
milar articles from foreign States. The duties
levied in this case arc known as differential!
duties. Now all this is pretty well understood
to be mistaken policy ; industry is believed to
dlKest when left to its own energies ; the
paying more for a commodity because
it is home-produced than the same kind of
article could be procured for from abroad is
clearly recognised ; and " Free Trade'.' is the
established principle of British fiscal legis
lation.
Another of th^ purposes to which the
Custom fiouse^Hpeen wrongfully applied is
to promote the morality, or rather to check the
presumed immorality, of the community by
the enforcement of what are in effect sumptuary
laws. Examples of this political blunder are
to be found in the motives which influence
many legislators in imposing high duties on
"spirits and in various other levies which wear
more of the aspect of fines for ofiences against
public taste than duties collected for revenue
purposes. The policy of prohibitive duties is>
however, well nigh exploded; statesmen have
learned that no legislation can have much effect
on personal character; and the inefficiency of
the most stringent Customs regulations to
secure that end has been again and again
demonstrated. Still it is necessary to set aside
from our consideration all imposts of this cha
racter iu discussing the policy of raising
revenue on imported goods, in order that
objections which do not apply essentially to I
the Customs system may not prejudice our
minds in the discussion.
Looking at the Customs as a Bource of
revenue in the light of the truths imperfectly
stated in the foregoing remarks, it will be
obvious—1st, that the articles selected for
taxation must not be articles which can be ordi
narily produced on nearly equal terms in . the
country; and 2nd, that in no case should a very
heavy duty be imposed on any one article. A
wise statesman will select, as dutiable goods,
articles in great demaud bj the community,
but which are not producible in the country;
and he will content himself' with such a
moderate impost on each of such articles as
will neither check its consumption nor
induce smuggling. A revenue derived j
from Customs duties so imposed and levied i
will be obtained without interfering with the |
freedom of the current of trade which runs I
into and out of our ports; it will not restrict
the use of any of the necessaries or luxuries of
life; it will not disturb the industrial ten
dencies of the community as directed by the
climate," the value of labour, and other natural
and social causes; and unless, it require too
expensive machinery to collect it, i3 open to
no direct positive objection whatever. Yet
this is the social arrangement which, if we
understand them aright, certain parties in this
community are now sworn to overturn. We
would feel obliged to these gentlemen,
if looking clearly at the Custom-House
as we have described its purpose and uses, and
eliminating all ideas connected with the false
uses to which it has been applied, they wil
state their objections to Ihe system in a shape
which may convince opponents, or be thoroughly
analysed and overturned.
Our readers will perceive that in the foregoing
remarks we have discussed the policy of import
duties as a positive and not a comparative
question. We have done so for the sake of present
convenience, and also that we may be able to pro
ceed to the comparison of this with other modes
of raising revenue which may be suggested as
superior to it with clear notions of the things to
he compared. In a future article we will deal:
more particularly with the practical effects of
the two systems of- taxation—indirect; by
means of Customs; and direct, by means of an
ncome-tax—and will show grounds for the
opinion that, in our present social circum
stances, we must combine both systems in
order to raise onr revenue eqnitably.
$