The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-26 00:00:00

TIIADDEUS STEVENS'S LETTER.

The " garrulous old man," as
.Mr. STEVENS calls
himself, could not be expected to stick to his text,
and before he gets half way he drops currency and
takes up protection. The rise of England's manu-
facturing supremacy is traced to the most stringent
act that ever protected domestic industry from the
possibility of foreign competition. Surrounding the
world from drum beat to drum beat, she stood sen-
tinel to protect her own people against the en-
croaching industry of other nations, so that the
sentinels could call out almost audibly to each other
—" Watchman, what of the night ?" It is impossible
for Mr. STEVENS to dwell on this subject without a
glaring display of the fallacies he holds. The
reasons he gives in favour of an export duty on
cotton would be passed in contempt if they came
from an unknown man. Emanating as they do from
the leader in Congress, although a painful exposure
of the style of intellects which often rule in the
world, still they carry weight, and may even impose
on some. " By our constitution," Mr. STEVENS ob-
serves, " all export duties are prohibited. That
constitution was made before either cotton or tobacco
were articles of any account in cur foreign trade,
and was evidently intended to prevent the power of
checking the experts of grain, tempted by what
were then the Corn Laws of England, which laid a
heavy duty on the importation of all grain. I admit
that, with the exception of cotton and tobacco, ex-
port duties would never be resorted to, for they
would increase the prosperity of no part of
the country." The argument which follows
may be thu3 summarised : The manufacturing pros-
perity of Europe rests on American cotton. Other
countries cannot produce a substitute equalling ours
even at two or three times the cost. hence one-half
the native price of cotton might be imposed on
thee xport without reducing it a pound. Thus the
tax imposed would be thrown on the foreign
merchant and manufacturer, to the benefit of
the United States revenue. Mr. STEVENS calcu-
lates that the present average of 1,501,862,1981b5.
exported will soon be increased one-third, making
the average 2,002,482,930, which at three cents
per lb. export duty would bring in 00,074,487.
The present internal tax which now falls upon the
United States manufacturers would then be
levied , upon foreign operators, protecting American

fabrics 5 cents per lb., of cotton produced. Mr.
STEVENS calculates this would be a protection
of upwards 10 cents a yard, which would argue
great want of skill and enterprise in the American
manufacturer if he did not monopolise the cotton
market of the world. And having first destroyed
the foreign manufacture the " garrulous old man"
then again reverts to the product of the tax by
which the inhabitants of the United States would
be relieved by the sum levied on foreigners of over
$60,000,000. There is an old saying which Mr.
STEVENS has forgotten, but which nurses often
tell children, " that they cannot cat their pudding,
and have it." Here is a great American statesman first
annihilating the foreign manufacture of cotton, and
at the same time adding a third to the export of the
staple, which must, of course, be worked by the
ruined factories, and levying an enormous sum as a
tax on the trade over whose destruction he is chuck-
ling. Absurd, however, as is this blunder, it is
rational when compared with the argument by
which he arrives at the annihilation of European
cotton industry. Au export duty is always paid by
the producer. Cotton in Liverpool, the market
which rules all others, sells not at the price fixed by the
producer, but at that which it can command. While
Mr. STEVENS was writing, the very staple which
formed his subject was selling on the flags of the
Liverpool Exchange at a ruinous loss to the
Southern planter, Instead of leaving the producer a
profit on which the United States might have levied
an export tax, we doubt at this moment whether it
repays him the cost of the labour expended. If the
United States levied the tax proposed by Mr.
STEVENS the cotton trade would pass for ever from
American hands, and great would be the rejoicing
in India and in Egypt. But presuming that Mr.
STEVENS was right, instead of wrong, in supposing
that the Southern States had a monopoly of cotton
production, the tax he proposes would still be levied
on the producer. He is aware, as his own practice has
shown, that men get as much as they can for what
they have to sell. It is no business of the
purchaser what the cost has been. He simply
bays at the lowest price at which. the article re-
quired can be purchased. Can Mr. STEVENS sup-
pose that the broker acting for the Southern planter
does not now get as high a price as the article can
fetch, yet the price, if we are right, does not actually
pay the cost of production. Could he screw it up,
he does so without any spur of export duty, put-
ting the balance of profit in his pocket. If he
could sell cotton against its weight in gold, that
would be the price, and no less. But this would
be quite independent of the cost of the staple. If
the United States charged as an export duty its
weight in silver, it would be so much out of the
planter's profit, but it would add nothing to the
price in Liverpool, which is simply the most the
man can get. But if the article, instead of leaving
a vast margin of profit, leaves little or none, the
producer is crushed by an export duty which
under such circumstances, he cannot pay. Ac-
cording to Mr. STEVENS the planter fixes the
price, telling the purchaser, we suppose, that
the United States, having added an export duty
of three cents, he has raised the price of Ameri-
can cotton to meet this lid. per lb. Now
the gist of what we say is, that if he could do this
he would not now be selling cotton at a loss, nor
wait till the duty was levied to raise the price,
nor confine himself to the amount of the tax,
but run it up to the extreme he could get. Poor
THAD. STEVENS then expresses his wonder that
not only the representatives of the Mississippi Valley
resisted his scheme, but, more amazing still, the
manufacturers of New England. We have touched
on a single subject of Mr. STEVENS'S letter, as it
most readily shows the obvious blunders of which
he may be capable. Hence we may learn the value
of his argument in favour of paying the National
Debt in greenbacks. Well might Mr. STEVENS
ask, " What is money ?" for it is clear he has but
a mild idea. Money means stamped coin ; a dollar
is defined by the laws of the United States as so
many grains of gold. When the Government bor-
rowed, it handed to the lenders promises to pay so
many dollars—that is, a certain weight in gold in
a specified time, and until then guaranteed a certain
semi-annual interest. Here was a specifin contract.
But Mr. STEVENS'S alleging that money is not
stamped coin, but anything the law makes it, states
that the Government can pay its debt by substi-
tuting for the interest-bearing bond, another paper
bearing no interest at all. After detailing the
great difficulties he experienced as chairman of a
committee in raising loans after the issue of the first
two or three, he goes on to sneer at the " sweet
communion between Jew and Gentile, at the Ssta-
DRACHS, MESHACHS, and ABEDNEGOS, at the
European capitalists, the ROTIISCHILDS, GOLD-
SMITHS, and the Ether money-dealers, from whom
his Government eventually obtained the necessary
funds. How was it the United States found any
difficulty in borrowing ? Because the stability
of the Government was then doubted. Because the
great war then progressing might have split the
States into fragments, and because a debt might be
reimpatient of taxation,
mightnur epd
United States was triumph-
ant,icrd whichu repudiate.
the
The nation,
the Union more strongly cemented, and, so
far, those who had faith enough in the future of
the United States to advance it money have been
right, and have reaped the benefit. Now, however,
such upright statesmen as THADDEUS STEVENS uses
this very success as an argument against the bloated
capitalists by whose money the United States was
enabled to carry on the war that preserved the
Union. But why argue against the childish theories
of a sick old man, who tells his own moral prin-
ciples in this simple story :—"Aconstituent of mine,
within two months of the adjournment of the Con-
gress that passed this law, informed me that he had
guaranteed to a gentleman in Philadelphia before
the passage of the law a judgment of $28,000 ex-
pressly payable in gold. The creditor demanded
the money. It was then worth about two or three
times its nominal value. lie went to him and ten-
dered the amount in greenbacks. He refused to
accept, and issued execution, and the Court set it
aside, and compelled him to take the lawful money
of the United States which had been offered to him.
Whether this transaction was a moral or immoral
one every gentleman must judge for himself, and will
judge according to his position. If a mall be dealing
for himself with his own money, I can understand
his right to bestow the half or the whole of the sum
upon his creditors either under the fancy of gene-
rosity or honour. But, when he is acting as trustee
for others, and paying out the money of cestui que
trusts and wards; it seems to me there may be in
morals, although not in law, a questioa about the
difference." The poor old gentleman writes bit-
terly, and somewhat idiotically in the opening
paragraphs of his letter. He knows that he " will
incur sharp and frivolous criticism from able editors,
whose age is scarcely more than 80 years, and who
will probably discover in my answer evidence of
old age and decaying intellectual powers. Of all
this I am myself conscious, and only regret the pain
which it gives those youthful gentlemen to make
such delicate suggestions." Now, if Mr. STEVENS
does not accept the decaying intellectual powers,
the alternative is one we have no wish to apply to
a sturdy old statesman who has manfully fought
out his battle in life. It must be painfully evident
to all who ever respected the man who led in Con-
gress, that the comments on the above story show
a moral obliquity. There can be no doubt at all
about the morality of the transaction, except,
perhaps, among professed thieves, who openly
assert their right to take who have the power,
and to keep who can. Mr. STEVENS'S con
stituent was a barefaced and impudent swindler;
and the most amazing part of the story is the auda-
city of the scoundrel in boasting of his villany to
Mfr, STEVENS. The man who can defend or in any
way justify such a transaction is a fit advocate for
repudiatiou.—Anglo-American Times.

lADVERTISEMENT.I - Holloway's Pills. With the
darkening days and changing temperatures the digestion
becomes impaired, the liver disordered, and the mind dis-
pondent, unless the cause of the irregularity be expelled
from the blood and body by an alterative like these pills.
They go directly to the source of the evil, thrust out all
impurities from the circulation, reduc3 distempered organs
to their natural state, and correct all defective or contami-
nated secretions. Such easy means of instituting health,
strength, and cheerfulness should be in the possession of
all whose stomachs are weak, whose minds are much
harassed, or whose brains aro overworked. Holloway's is
essentially a blood-tempering medicine, whereby its in-
fluence reaching the remotest Digs of the pain effects a
tuziyorfial good.

CHRONIC PAUPERISM.