THE PLETHORIC AMERICAN TREASURY.
While most of the old Governments of Europe are fairly at their witsend trying to find out some new scheme for making a small income square with a large expenditure, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States comes forward with his annual complaint that he does not know what to do with the large surplus of hard cash which has accumulated in his hands. Under the operation of the present tariff, the revenue from customs was upwards of 64,000,000 dollars last year, and threatens to be nearly eighty millions in the year ending June 1857, unless some steps are taken to reduce the duties on imports. The actual balance in the Treasury at the end of last financial year was 19,901,325 dollars, in spite of all that has been done by Government to increase the expenditure. The Secretary of the Treasury alludes to the reckless way in which the money is wasted, in a somewhat cautious manner, but it is easy to guess what he is aiming at. "Many believe," he says, "that the 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 dollars annually expended out of the national treasury for carrying the mails and for printing books, &c., has been caused by a redundant and overflowing treasury, and that the same cause has operated to increase our expenditure upon other objects, and upon some not called for by the present or future exigency of the Government, nor by the justice of the claims provided for ; whilst but few, if any, believe that there is any necessity for continuing to increase our expenditures with the continued increase of our revenues." This is a very gentle mode of stating the case, but it is quite as strong as one could expect from a member of the Government under which all this waste of the national revenue has been taking place.
The remedy suggested for the relief of the American exchequer is the abolition of the duty on wool and certain other raw materials employed in manufactures. In this way, and by placing salt and several other articles of general consumption on the free list, it is estimated that the revenue from customs will be brought down to 50,000,000 dollars ; which sum, with the receipts from the public lands, ought to be sufficient for me annual ...eutaliture. The wily difficulty in carrying out this suggestion will be with regard to the selection of duties. Considering the high price of iron in the United States, and the large quantity required for the making and maintenance of railways, one would naturally have supposed that the railway interest would be strong enough to obtain the repeal of the duty on that material. But the ironmasters of Pennsylvania have more weight in the Legislature than the purchasers of railway iron ; and therefore that branch of the tariff, it is said, will remain without alteration. During the last fifteen years, the annual value of the iron and steel produced in the United States has risen from 29,909,162 dollars in 1840 to 78,406,538 dollars in 1855. With such a rate of increase in home production, the Secretary of the Treasury can see no reason for giving greater facilities to foreigners. "We have in the United States," he goes on to say, "more iron ore and more coal, with the usual fluxes, in convenient connexion and of cheaper access, than all the other civilized nations of the world ; and have the necessary capital, skill, and labour, to produce all the iron and steel, and manufactures of iron and steel, required for our consumption, or that may be required for our consumption, for centuries to come, and also to enable us to supply the markets of other countries in fair competition with the iron and steel of other nations." But if the Federal Government is so well satisfied as to their being "capital, skill, and labour" sufficient to produce all the iron and steel which the inhabitants of the United States require, what argument can be adduced in favour of the present high duty on English iron and steel ? In speaking of wool, the Secretary has sense enough to see that the imposition of a tax on the foreign article imposes a burden on the American manufacturer, without conferring a corresponding benefit upon the American farmer. He has even discovered that there are circumstances which would "make free trade in wool more desirable and more beneficial to the wool-grower as well as the manufacturer" than the present protective system ; and the history of the wool trade in Great Britain is referred to in proof of this position. But why should the example of this country be quoted with reference to wool and ignored as regards the question of free trade generally ? If enlightened self-interest dictates the abolition of protective duties on the materials required by the woollen-manufacturer, it no less imperatively requires the relinquishment of a tax of 30 per cent on iron, the most indispensable material for promoting the cheap production and distribution of all the necessaries and luxuries of civilized life.
"Great Britain," says the Treasury report, "admits wool, a raw material, free of duty, and the United States impose upon it a duty of 30 per cent. This enables the English manufacturer to interfere with the American manufacturer in the American markets, and to exclude him from foreign markets." The remedy proposed is the abolition of the duty on wool ; which is all very good as regards the woollen trade. But how are the American workers in iron and steel to compete with Sheffield and Wolverhampton, if they are still to be taxed 30 per cent on the materials they work upon ? Were such a onesided scheme of taxation proposed by any Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country, it would meet with universal ridicule. In America the mass of the people do not seem to understand such questions. What can be more absurd, for example, than the levying a tax of 30 per cent on foreign sugar, not for revenue purposes, as we have already seen that they have far more money than they need, but simply to give a bounty to the Louisiana planter?
Previous page