Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[MAY 11, 1830|

fall upon the producer, until he can withdraw his capital from it the southern planters, with their imported manu and labor, and thereby diminish the production of the factures. This, sir, is the true issue now pending between taxed article. Such is the operation of impost duties upon the northern and southern States, and I thank the gentlethe cotton planter. On the contrary, a general impover- man from Massachusetts for his unintentional exposure ishment of all the soils that are devoted to the production of the real object of the prohibitory system. It will now of cotton would, in the first instance, diminish the quantity be apparent to every intelligent mind, that the duties leproduced, cause an enhancement of the price, and conse- vied on the exchanges of the southern planters are taxes quently throw the most of the burden upon the consumer. upon them as producers, independent of their consump An annual blight, therefore, which should destroy two- tion. It is not denied that the planter is taxed to the ex fifths of the crops of the cotton planters, would be much tent that he consumes the productions of foreign countries less injurious to them, than a duty of forty per cent. upon subject to import duties. I will, therefore, confine my the exchange of their productions. And yet it is argued, self for the present to the consideration of that portion of with solemn gravity, that this duty imposes no tax upon the imports obtained in exchange for cotton, tobacco, and the planters, which does not equally extend to all other rice, which consist of foreign manufactures brought inte classes of the community! the United States, not for the purpose of being consumed by the planting States, but for the purpose of supplying the demand of the States for those articles. Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, that South Carolina consumes only one-half of the eight millions worth of foreign manufactures annually imported in exchange for her staples and that the other half is brought into the country, to be carried into the markets of the western and middle States, and offered for sale in competition with the manufacture of Massachusetts. What, sir, would be the nature of this competition, and upon what footing would it stand as af fected by the legislation of Congress ?

The gentleman from Massachusetts, who first addressed the committee, [Mr. DAVIS] has entirely misapprehended the argument I used, and the effect of the proposition I laid down, as to the operation of an impost duty on the price of cotton. I did not say that such a duty diminished the price of cotton in the foreign markets. On the contrary, I expressly and distinctly stated, as the basis of my whole argument, that no change was produced in those markets, either in the price of cotton, or of the manufactures we receive in exchange for it. The very essence of my complaint was, that the planter was compelled to pay the Government forty per cent. upon the amount of his exchange, and yet could not obtain any more for his cotton, nor purchase foreign manufactures any cheaper, in consequence of the tax imposed upon him. In other words, he receives no larger quantity of manufactures for a given quantity of cotton, than he would receive if no duty were imposed, and yet he is not permitted to bring those manufactures into the United States until he pays the duty. The result necessarily follows, that the whole burden of the duty must fall upon the planter, unless he can transfer a part of it to the domestic consumer, by enhancing the price of the foreign manufacture in the home market. This, however, can only be doue by diminishing the aggregate quantity of foreign and domestic manufactures in that market. But the very object and evident tendency of prohibitory duties is to supply the home market with quantity of domestic manufactures, very nearly equal to the foreign manufactures excluded. The supply, therefore, is not diminished to any great extent, nor is the demand increased by these duties; and consequently the price of the foreign manufacture cannot be enhanced in the domestic market, in proportion to the impost duty, any more than the price of cotton would be enhanced in the foreign market, in consequence of an export duty.

a

It will be recollected that one of the gentlemen from Massachusetts [Mr. GORHAM] admitted that an import duty was equivalent to an export duty, and operated as a tax upon the producer, where the articles which were subject to the import duty came in competition with similar articles upon which no duties were imposed in the home market. Now, sir, this is precisely the case under consideration. The foreign manufactures upon which duties of forty-five per cent. are paid by the planters, came in competition with domestic manufactures upon which no duties at all are imposed.

Indeed, sir, another gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] made an admission, into which I presume he was inadvertently betrayed, as I cannot suppose he would have made a disclosure so fatal to his argument, if he had duly considered its bearings and consequences. He stated, and correctly stated, that the southern planters and northern manufacturers were contending for the domestic market of the United States; that the object of the southern plant ers in contending for free trade, was to be admitted, with the productions purchased by their own industry, into that market; and the object in the northern manufacturers, in contending for high duties and restrictions, was to exclude

Will it be denied that the foreign manufactures, import ed in exchange for the agricultural staples of South Care lina, are as truly the productions of her industry, as if ber own citizens bad turned the spindle and thrown the shuttle by which they were fabricated? Amidst all the er travagance and absurdity by which the prohibitory system has been sustained, I presume no one can be found bold enough to make the denial.

What, then, is the footing upon which the citizens South Carolina and the citizens of Massachusetts come in competition with the respective productions of their in dustry, in the markets of Kentucky and Ohio, of New York and Pennsylvania? Is it a footing of equality? On the contrary, is there not a discriminating duty of forty-five per cent, and upwards, unjustly imposed upon the pro ductions of South Carolina, for the sole purpose of exclud ing them from the markets in question, while an indirect bounty to the same extent is given to the productions of Massachusetts, for the sole purpose of giving them the command of those markets? There is no possible aspect in which this system of restrictions could be presented, so well ealerlated to exhibit its abominable and iniquitous injustice.

If a duty of forty-five per cent. were imposed upon the importation of the productions of South Carolina into all the other States, the outrage would shock the moral sense of every man in the nation: yet this would be doing no thing more, in point of principle, and much less in point of fact, than what has been actually done already. What have said of South Carolina, is equally true of all the planting States.

Suppose for a moment that the manufactures obtained in exchange for the productions of southern industry, were imported for the purpose of supplying Mexico or South America, and that no drawback should be allowed upon exporting them to those countries. Could any one doubt, in this case, that the impost duties would operate as taxes upon the planters as producers, and not upon the consumers? And yet it is, to all intents and purposes, the same thing to the planters to be compelled to pay duties on the manufactures they import, for the purpose of sup plying Kentucky and Ohio, as it would be, to be compel led to pay the same duties on the manufactures imported, for the purpose of supplying Mexico or South America.

I do solemnly believe that there never was a branch of national industry so oppressed and borne down by unjust taxes and restrictions, as the agriculture of the planting States; and I beg the committee to notice the complicate

1

The Tariff.

[H. OF R

weight of discriminating duties, imposed, too, by our own different parts of the Union, and the different branches o
Government, with which it has to contend, both in the fo-productive industry.
reign and domestic market. Let us take cotton as an
example.

cent.

one case, they operate as taxes upon consumption; in the other, as discriminating transit duties, which the planters are compelled to pay for the privilege of vending the productions of their lawful industry in the markets of their own country, when they come in competition with productions of other States, which are not only free from taxation, but nourished by Government bounties.

criminating duties to change the course of trade, and hence demonstrate the practical injury inflicted upon the stapleI will now proceed to illustrate the tendency of disgrowing States by your impost system.

In the first place, it has to seek a foreign market, where the consumption of their own citizens, or for the purpose The committee cannot but now perceive that whether it meets in competition the cotton of Brazil and Egypt, of carrying them into the markets of other States, to be the planting States of the South import manufactures for produced by the richest soils, and that of the East Indies, sold in competition with northern manufactures, the import produced by the cheapest labor upon the face of the earth. duties, in either case, operate as taxes upon the planting In the second place, it has to contend against a discrimi-States, though not precisely to the same extent. In the nating duty of at least thirty per cent. in favor of the cotton of Brazil, and of at least forty-five per cent. in favor of the cotton of the East Indies and Egypt. The planters of Brazil, East India, and Egypt, receive the same quantity of British manufactures for a given quantity and quality of cotton, as the American planter; but the Brazilian only pays a duty of fifteen per cent. on those manufactures, and the Egyptian and East India planters pay no duty at all, while the American planter pays at least forty-five per It cannot be doubted, therefore, that the American planter has to contend, in foreign markets, not only against the fertile soil and cheap labor of the other cotton growing regions of the world, but against a discriminating duty made between the duties imposed upon silks imported equal to the difference between the duties imposed by the from beyond the Cape of Good Hope, and those imported A few years ago, a discrimination of five per cent. was tariff of the United States, and by those of Brazil, the East from Europe; and already has the amount of silks importIndies, and Egypt, respectively, upon European manufac-ed from France been almost doubled, while the amount of tures. He does not ask Congress to give him any bounty those imported from China has fallen off in a correspondor protection, to enable him to meet foreign competition ing degree. in foreign markets; all he asks is, that his own Government may not send him abroad to meet this competition not only of five per cent. in favor of foreigners, effected by evasions unbountied and unprotected, but with a discriminating duty of the revenue laws, is sufficient to throw into their hands It is said by practical merchants, that a discrimination of from thirty to forty-five per cent against his cotton, and almost the whole business of importation, to the exclusion in favor of that of other countries! Yet even this humble of the American importers. If these small discriminations exemption-an exemption which he claims upon the most can change the course of trade to so great an extent, common principles of natural and political justice, he can not obtain from a Government which claims the sacred to forty-five per cent. against the American planters in what must be the effect of a discrimination of from thirty title of a paternal and protecting Government! But his foreign markets, and of forty five per cent. in the domestic difficulties do not end here. When he returns to his own market? The most satisfactory mode of ascertaining the country with the manufactures obtained in exchange for burden imposed by these discriminations, is to consider his cotton, he is destined to encounter a competition even the effect which would result from a repeal of them. What more unequal than that which he encountered abroad. He then would be the effect resulting from that repeal! We has to hold competition with the northern manufacturer, have been very gravely told by the gentleman from Maswith a clear discriminating duty of forty-five per cent. sachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] that it would raise the price of against himself, and in favor of the manufacturer, in addi- manufactures, and depress the price of cotton in the United tion to the duties levied in foreign countries upon his cot-States! An audience that can believe this, would believe ton, and the expenses of importing the manufactures re- in any of the miracles of the dark ages. The repeal of ceived in exchange for it. Wherever he goes, at home or our impost duties, on the contrary, would, in the first abroad, he finds himself pressed down by the heavy hand place, enable the American cotton planters to drive all of his own Government. While the Government is subject their competitors out of the markets of Europe. If the ing the planters of cotton, tobacco, and rice, to the bur-planters of Brazil, the East Indies, and Egypt, can barely dens of this twofold operation of discriminating duties, it is maintain the competition, with discriminating duties of worth while to inquire how its legislation operates upon from thirty to forty-five per cent. in their favor, they could the other branches of domestic industry. Sir, there is scarcely a single branch of industry belong equality. The consequence would be an increased denot maintain it for a single year upon a footing of perfect ing to northern or to middle States, that is not protected, mand for our cotton in Europe, to the extent of at least even in the enjoyment of the home market, by an average three hundred thousand bales. For it is to be remarked discriminating duty of forty-five per cent.-a duty profess-that the increased demand would result, not only from the edly imposed upon the productions of southern industry exclusion of the Brazilian, East India, and Egyptian cotand enterprise, with a view to their exclusion, and the sub- ton from the markets of Europe, but from the increased stitution of the productions of northern industry. Yes, consumption of cotton in those markets. There is no aswhile the cotton, and rice, and tobacco planters are doom-signable limit to the quantity of cotton that would be coned to sustain all the difficulties and obstacles arising from sumed in Europe, if we would receive manufactures freely the competition of the whole world in foreign markets, in exchange for it. Now, sir, upon the conceded princiunder the weight of an enormous discriminating duty im- ple, that supply and demand regulate the price of every posed by their own Government, the cotton and woollen article, it would puzzle the gentleman from Massachusetts manufacturer, the wool growers, the iron-masters, the salt to show that an increased demand for American cotton, makers, and sugar planters, not satisfied with the natural to the extent of three hundred thousand bales, would diprotection resulting from the distance of the competitors, are secured in the monopoly of the domestic market by the additional protection of forty-five per cent., unjustly bestowed upon them by a despotic majority, at the expense of those very planters! If there is one spark of jus tice left in the breasts of that majority, it will acknowledge the flagrant outrage of such a discrimination between the

minish the price. In fact, the real price of American cot-
ton would be increased very nearly as many per cent. as
the duties on foreign manufactures were diminished. So
that the American cotton planter would have an increased
demand for his staple, amounting to three hundred thou-
sand bales, and would obtain an increased price of little
less than forty-five per cent., not only for those three hun-

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[MAY 11, 1830.

Now, sir, if there be any truth in these representations, if we are to regard them as anything more than mere rhetorical flourishes, they furnish the most incontestible proof of the unequal, unjust and oppressive operation of the prohibitory system upon the planting States. They certainly amount to a distinct and unequivocal admission that the wealth and prosperity of the manufacturing States are derived from the duties imposed upon the productions of southern industry; for if a repeal, or even a moderate restriction of these duties would spread desolation over the eastern and middle States, it follows as a corollary, that the existence of those duties must produce a corresponding injury to the southern States.

dred thousand bales, but for the whole amount of his production. Such, sir, would be the effect upon the foreign demand for American cotton, produced by the repeal of your unjust restrictions-restrictions which have all the injurious effects upon the American cotton planter which would result from the imposition, by Great Britain, France, and Holland, of a discriminating duty of from thirty to for ty-five per cent. on American cotton, beyond what they imposed on the cotton of Brazil, Egypt, and the East Indies. It remains to be ascertained what would be the effect produced upon the operations of trade in the domestic market of the United States, by the repeal of the high duties imposed upon foreign manufactures, and which really operate, and are designed to operate, as discriminating du- I presume I may take it for granted that the days of poties against the southern planters, and in favor of the north-litical necromancy have passed away, and that no one will ern manufacturers. The repeal of those duties, or a considerable reduction of them, would enable the southern planters to drive the northern manufacturers out of the markets of the United States, as certainly and to as great an extent as it would enable them to drive the planters of Brazil, Egypt, and the East Indies out of the markets of Eu rope. This is apparent from the single consideration, that, with protecting or discriminating duties of forty-five per cent., the northern manufacturers can scarcely maintain the competition with the southern planters, in supplying the demand of the United States for such manufactures as those planters obtain in exchange for their agricultural staples. If those were repealed, or even reduced to twenty per cent., it is obvious that the manufactures of the northern States would be supplanted by those which are obtained in exchange for the productions of the southern States, to an extent fully equal to the increased demand for our cotton in Europe. For it cannot be doubted that the aggregate consumption of manufactures would be very greatly increased in the United States; so that the southern planters would have an increased demand for the manufactures purchased with their productions, not only in consequence of underselling and supplanting northern manufactures, but in consequence of the increased consumption of manufactures generally.

now contend, except perhaps that celebrated Rosicrucian philosopher, Professor List, that there is a creative power in legislation. Sir, no political power on earth can, by a mere touch of the legislative wand, as if by the touch of Midas, diffuse wealth and prosperity over extensive regions of country. Nothing less than an omnipotent power is adequate to produce such a result. Whatever wealth, therefore, is communicated to one portion of the Union by the duties and taxes imposed by Congress, must necessarily, and in the very nature of things be abstracted from the wealth of some other portions of the Union. Human industry only, co-operating with the bounties of nature, can create wealth. All that human legislation can possibly accomplish in this respect, beyoud protecting the property of every citizen against foreign and domestic violence and injustice, is to change the natural distribution of the wealth thus created, by an arbitrary and despotic transfer of the property of one portion of the community to another.

I have said that it is impossible to confer wealth on one part of the Union, by the legislation of Congress, without abstracting an equal amount of wealth from some other part of the Union. I now go further: I maintain that whenever this transfer of wealth from one part of the Union to another is effected by regulations which divert industry from If, then as no one, I presume, will question-the bene- its natural into artificial channels, the burden imposed upfits which would result to the southern planters from the on the one part of the Union is much greater than the repeal or reduction of the prohibitory duties, should be benefit conferred upon the other. When, therefore, it is taken as the measure of the burdens imposed upon them affirmed that the proposed reduction of the duties upon by those duties, the committee will very clearly perceive the productions of southern industry would utterly desothat I have not estimated the burdens of the southern late the manufacturing States, gentlemen should reflect States too highly. For it may be safely assumed that a that they are giving the strongest possible confirmation of reduction of the duties imposed upon foreign manufac- the alleged desolation produced by these duties upon the tures, with a view to the protection of the domestic, from prosperity of the planting States. For nothing can be their present rates to twenty per cent., would increase the more clear, in my view of the subject, than that the injury annual income of the planters of cotton, tobacco, and rice done to the planting States by the imposition of the duties at least ten milllons of dollars, taking into view the increasin question, is much more extensive than that which would ed demand for these staples, and their increased value, re-result to the manufacturing States by the repeal of them. sulting from the reduction of the duties in question. And yet, A very brief analysis of the manner in which the proeven after this reduction, the planting States would contri- posed reduction of duties would operate, will illustrate bute more than their due proportion to the federal treasury. and confirm the views here presented. What, then, is it These views of the unequal action of your impost sys-that would produce the alleged desolation in the manufac tem upon the different sections of the Union, and of the turing States? Would a British army, with hostile banners effect of its repeal or modification, are fully confirmed by waving over the ruins of your manufacturing establishthe concurrent declarations of almost every advocate of ments, carrying devastation by fire and sword throughout that system, who has addressed the committee during this the manufacturing States of the Union? Would the southdebate. They all concur in the opinion that the adoption ern planters with an army of slaves, apply the incendiary of the amendment I have offered-small as is the reduc- torch to those establishments! Nothing of this sort is pretion it proposes would be utterly ruinous to the northern tended, sir. The manufacturers would neither feel the manufacturers. One gentleman [Mr. DAVIS] has stated hand of violence nor injustice. Nothing would be taken that all the manufactories would be razed to their founda- from them to which they have a semblance of title. The tions, and that the people of New England would have no whole of the desolation which gentlemen have depicted, resource or refuge, but in flying to the western wilderness, would result from restoring to the planting States a porto take up their abodes among savages and wild beasts. tion only of their natural and constitutional rights. As Another gentleman [Mr. DENNY] has said, that, if you the tariff now stands, the southern planters are not peradopt the proposed amendment, you sweep through Penn- mitted to vend the productions of their industry in the sylvania with the besom of destruction, and run a plough-markets of the Union, until they have paid a discrimi share over Pittsburg. nating duty of forty-five per cent., while the manufacturing

[blocks in formation]

States are permitted to vend their productions without paying any duty at all. Even if the proposed amendment were adopted, there would still remain a discriminating duty of a least twenty-five per cent. against the southern planters, and in favor of the northern manufacturers.

[H. OF R.

signal benefits upon one portion of the Union, withou doing a corresponding injury to any other portion. It is true, indeed, that one of the gentlemen from Massachu setts [Mr. DAVIS] did very distinctly advance the proposition that impost duties are not taxes, and do not impose any burden upon the community, but confer very great benefits. The first day he addressed the committee, he made a very labored argument to prove that impost duties producers. The second day be maintained, with equal earnestness, that every increase of duties on foreign manufactures, so far from increasing their price, had actually made them cheaper, and consequently that the consumer paid no part of the tax, but, on the contrary, received a benefit. The gentleman acted wisely in not uttering these two propositions on the same day. Separated by the interval of a night, it was possible that the paradoxical absurdity involved in their union might not be perceived. When brought together, they amount to nothing less than the broad and unqualified assertion that the impost duties laid upon foreign manufactures, though they yield a large revenue to the Government, and, indirectly, a bounty to domestic manufacture, impose no burden at all upon any portion of the community. After this, the doctrine that taxation is no tyranny," can no longer be regarded as confined to the slavish advocate of the despotic power of the British Parliament, and the passive obedience of the North American colonies. Improving upon the exploded political text, that a “public debt” is a " public blessing," the gentleman from Massachusetts has revealed to us the still more important discovery, "that a public tax is a pub. lic blessing."

And yet gentlemen openly admit and declare, that, even with this discriminating duty of twenty-five per cent. in their favor, the northern manufacturers cannot hold competition with the southern planters, in supplying the mar-imposed no burden at all upon the southern planters, as kets of the Union with manufactured articles, but would be utterly ruined by the competition. If, then, this partial restitution of the rights of the southern States would produce such disastrous consequences to the northern manufacturers, what would be the effect produced by an entire restoration of those rights? Those rights can be completely restored, only by placing the productions of southern industry upon a footing or perfect equality with the productions of northern industry. To produce this equality, there should be no discriminating duty at all, not to the extent of twenty-five or even five per cent. The manufactures purchased by southern industry should be subject to no higher duties than the manufactures made by northern industry. The property obtained by purchase is no more rightfully the subject of taxation, nor less entitled to the protection of a just Government, than that which is manufactured by the owner. Whatever duty, therefore, is imposed upon foreign manufactures obtained in exchange for the productions of domestic industry, the same rate of duty should be imposed upon the manufactures made in the United States, and brought into competition with them. This is indispensable to that equality of taxation which every State in the Union has a right to demand. If a duty of twenty-five per cent, is im- So far as there is any truth in the assertion of the genposed upon the manufactures imported by the southern tleman from Massachusetts, that the increase of duties on planters, the same duty should be imposed upon those foreign manufactures does not enhance their price, it is a which are made by the northern manufacturers. They conclusive confirmation of my argument, as to the operawould then come into competition upon a footing of per- tion of impost duties on the producers of our exports, fect equally in regard to government protection. What- For if the price of manufactures be not increased, in conever advantage either might have, would be a natural ad- sequence of the duties, it follows that no part of the tax vantage, of which they could not be rightfully deprived falls upon the producers. Nothing can be more certain by the Government. If, then, the reduction of the duties than that, if there be no magic in the business, somebody on imported manufactures to twenty-five per cent. would must pay the taxes that go into the federal treasury. The prove ruinous to the northern manufacturers, what utter truth of the matter is, that the price of manufactures is and absolute destruction would result to those manufac- not increased in proportion to the duties imposed upon turers from that reduction, accompanied by an excise duty their importation, though it is increased to a certain exof twenty-five per cent. on their production? It must tent. But it is equally true that the price of the staples be obvious from the declaration of almost every gentleman of exportation is diminished by the impost duties, to a cerwho has spoken against the proposed amendment, that this tain extent also. The duties must be paid either by the equalization of duties on northern manufactures and south- producers, or by the consumers, or by them both. Whatern imports would give to the latter almost the entire pos-ever portion of the duties is not paid by one of these classes, session of the markets of the United States, to the exclusion of the former. All this conclusively demonstrates that the manufacturers of the northern States are actually sustained by the unjust discriminating duties imposed upon the productions of southern industry, and could not exist for twelve months in a tolerable state of prosperity if those duties were repealed. And yet gentlemen, who admit this to be true, have the modest assurance to tell us that the duties in question impose no burden upon the southern States, that does not operate eqaully as a burden open all parts of the Union, and that the tariff has nothing to do with the distress and suffering and decay of the southern States !

Sir, it is vain that gentlemen attempt to wind their way through the labyrinth of inconsistencies in which they are involved. To a mind capable of comprehending the subject, there cannot be presented a more palpable contradiction, than to assert that the repeal of the duties on southern imports would ruin the northern manufacturers, and yet that the imposition of those duties is not as injurious to the southern planters, as their repeal would be to the northern manufacturers. Such a notion can be maintained only by ascribing to the legislation of Congress the supernatural power of imposing taxes which shall confer

must be paid by the other. In the actual state of the foreign and domestic markets, I confidently believe that the principal burden falls upon the producers; in other words, that the duties imposed upon foreign manufactures exhibit their effects much more in depressing the price of our agricultural staples in our own markets, than in the enhancement of the price of manufactures. But the gentleman from Massachusetts cannot conceive how the price of cotton can be depressed by our impost duties, and seems to suppose that if these duties depress the price of American cotton in our own markets, they must equally depress the price of foreign cotton in the markets of Europe. Now, the truth is nearly the reverse of what he supposes. If an export duty were imposed upon cotton, the gentleman would probably understand it. That would diminish the vale of cotton to the planter, almost to the full extent of the duty, although it would not at all diminish the price in Europe. If the planter receive the same price only for his cotton, after the imposition of the duty, that he received before, the duty most unquestionably falls on him. The gentleman seems to me to have failed in his usual acuteness, in confounding the effect of our tariff upon the price of cotton in foreign markets, and in our own

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[MAY 11, 1830.

It will be recollected that the leading proposition which I laid down, and to which all the rest were subservient, was that forty per cent. on the cotton, tobacco, and rice, exported from the planting States, might be fairly assumed as the measure of the burdens imposed upon them by this Government.

markets. Hence he infers that the American merchant sented as stating that the whole burden falls upon the who purchases the cotton of the planter, pays for it in producers, and no part of it on the consumers. And money, as much as it is worth in Europe, deducting only whereas I stated that the duties imposed upon the foreign the freight and charges; and, from these erroneous pre-manufactures we received in exchange for cotton, have mises, he infers that if any loss occurs afterwards, by re- the effect of depressing the price of cotton in the United ceiving goods subject to duty, it must fall on the merchant. States, I am represented as stating that those duties deNow, the gentleman gives credit to the American mer- press the price of cotton in foreign markets. chant for a very small share of sagacity, in taking it for granted that he will pay the planter as high a money price for his cotton as can be obtained for it in Europe, (deducting only freight and charges,) when it is known that the only purpose for which he purchases the cotton, and the only profitable use to which he can apply it, is to give it in exchange for foreign manufactures which he will not Now, sir, if we assume that only one-half of the burden be permitted to sell until he pays the duty. In fixing the of the imposts fall upon the planters, as producers, my money price of cotton in the United States, the merchants proposition will be most completely sustained: for I will undoubtedly take into consideration the duties they will now take into the estimate two very important items, have to pay on the return cargo. These duties constitute which I did not think it necessary to present in my former one of the principal elements of the calculation upon argument. We have been told, this morning, by a gen which the price of cotton is founded. It may be true that tleman from New York, [Mr. STRONG] that the tariff this calculation is not actually made by each individual States purchase from the planting States cotton to the merchant who purchases a lot of cotton; but it is equally amount of six millions of dollars. I believe this to be an true that each individual merchant does not calculate the extravagant estimate; and, though it would better subdemand and supply when he makes a purchase, though serve the purposes of my argument, I will not adopt it. every one knows that these are the two circumstances The true amount of cotton sold by the southern to the which infallibly regulate prices. This reasoning is con- northern States may be set down at five millions of dollars. clusively confirmed by a comparison of the prices current Assuming forty-five per cent. as the average of the duties of cotton in Great Britain and the United States at this levied on foreign manufactures, and that one-half only of moment. Prime cotton now commands seven and a half this duty is taken out of the price of cotton, it will follow pence, or about fourteen per cents per pound in Liverpool. that the planters sustain a loss of twenty-two and a half per Add to this the difference of exchange, and the differ- cent. upon the cotton sold to the northern manufacturers. ence in the value of the currencies of the two countries, For whatever depresses in our own markets the price of which amount to eight per cent., and you have fifteen the cotton exported to foreign countries, must equally cents, or more, as the price of cotton in Liverpool, esti- depress the price of the smaller portion of it consumed mated in American currency. Now, sir, the very highest by the domestic manufacturers. Here, then, is a burden price that can be obtained in the markets of the United of one million one hundred and twenty-five thousand dolStates, is eleven and a half cents. Add to this two cents lars imposed upon the internal trade of the cotton plantfor freight and insurance, and other charges, a large alers, which does not go into the public treasury, but evilowance, and you have thirteen and a half cents as the price which it costs the American merchant to deliver in Liverpool the cotton for which he obtains fifteen cents. So far, therefore, from giving the planter as large a money price for his cotton, deducting the charges, as he could obtain in Europe, the American merchant reserves one and a half cents for his profit on every pound; where as, if imported manufactures were freed from the discriminating duties imposed upon them, and the importing merchant could make his regular profit upon the merchandise imported, every practical man knows that, as cotton is the most convenient medium of remittance, it would command very nearly as high a price in the United States as it would in Great Britain.

But the merchant must have his profit on one branch of the exchange or the other. What your discriminating duties in favor of domestic manufacture prevent him from making on the merchandise he imports, he must make upon the staples which he exports. Thus it is, sir, that the price of cotton is depressed in our own markets, more than that of manufactures is enhanced, by prohibitory duties; and, consequently, the largest portion of the burden of these duties falls upon the planters, as producers. If all the duties now imposed upon foreign manufactures were repealed, and trade left perfectly free, I will hazard my reputation on the assertion that there would not be a difference of more than one cent a pound between the price of cotton in Liverpool and in Charleston; whereas the difference now is two and a half cents at least. And here I cannot but remark that the gentlemen opposed to me have, in scarcely a single instance, stated my propositions correctly, and met them fairly. Whereas I stated that at laast one-half of the burden of the duties laid upon imports falls upon the producers of the exports given in exchange for them, as producers, I am repre

dently into the pockets of the manufacturers. But this
is not all. If the planters receive, in exchange for this
cotton, northern manufactures, enhanced by protecting
duties, they are subjected to an additional burden of one
million one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, as
the consumers of those manufactures. I will assume, how-
ever, that only half the amount of cotton sold to the
northern manufacturers is received by the planters in
domestic goods, enhanced by the protecting duties. From
this, it will follow that the planters sustain a burden of
one million six hundred and eighty-seven thousand five
hundred dollars upon this branch of their internal trade;
of which, one million one hundred and twenty-five thou-
sand dollars results from the depression of the price of
cotton, and half that sum from the enhancement of the
price of the manufactures received in exchange for it.
There is another item to be added to the burdens of the
southern States.

They export grain, flour, lumber, turpentine, and various other articles, amounting to not less than two millions of dollars, in addition to their exports of cotton, tobacco, and rice. The burden they sustain, through these exports, cannot be less than six hundred and fifty thousand dollars, in any view of the subject. This sum, added to one million six hundred and eighty-seven thousand five hundred dollars, gives two million three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars, which must be added to the burdens of the southern States, besides what they bear as the exporters of cotton, tobacco, and rice.

Now, if even we grant that only one-half of the burden of the duties imposed upon the foreign trade of the planters is paid by them as producers, yet they will pay, even in that view, twenty-two and a half per cent. on thirty-seven millions of dollars of exports, amounting to eight million three hundred and twenty-five thousand

« AnteriorContinuar »