Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-05-02

! could not sssily be spared fr0m The (. ca
sury.--As TO sugar, before we made il,
(save th, few owners Of the maple sugar.
the duty on brOwB sugar WAS % cents
II is now (hxed by the tariff OF 1876 >
cents, only a cent more, since we at
quired Louisiana-wbile, in the same
time, woollens, coitons, &c. &c. have in.
creased from l25 TO % per cent.
Spi,its-ihe duties on these from a.
broad do certainly contribute in a certain
degree TO the benefit of The farmer bur
they likewise operate 10 the interest OF
the manufacturers of n England rum
from molasses, a foreign material. Ii is
not surprising that an article, not only Of
luxury, but OF mischief, should pay hea-
Wy duty; but however much il may ope-
rate TO the benefit Of the domestic pro-
ducts, they occasionally pay dear enough
for II. When money IL most wanted. the
treasury turns TO levy its contribution up
on domestic spirits. They were taxed
daring the war ; they taxed us with the
expenses Of an instruction in "a and
AT this moment, a resolution is before
The ii. OF Il. TO levy new excise upon
them.
The classification of This article, how
ever, does not altogether please us. Why
uIe SPftsp tODdCCO, -,
&c. placed 10 "the protection and en-
enlargement OF ogricuiime"! We wonder
we are not told that the duiy on import
ell cotton goods is laii for the same pur-
pose. The raw material is equally The
growth of our own country, as those,
out OF which are manufactured our peach
brandy and whiskey.
We do not deny that there arc several
subordinate articles (of agriculiurc) which
have received the greatest encourage
meni that could have been reasonably
asked for them, such as cheese Tvs licb In :
tie iavours us, but principally The eastern
s!ates,) but we contend that our great az
riculiural staples have been little more
than nominaiiy protected. Say however
ii was an efficient protection. What then
Mr.. G. has made out comparative tao e.
for agrIc ulture and manuiaciur, She has
anIuslngly paired off potatoes against
watches, butter against jrwelry, -four
against inkpowder, &c &c. But we think
more correct comparison would Lave
beennot b,tn cen tlieamaler articles, bu'
| beiween the greater ones. And then what
Is the comparative account That -four,
tobacco, rice, lumber pay hui ID per cent.
and cotton from p TO 30 that the WOOL
lens and col,oHS pay %, linens Is, iron
castings as. And yet agriculture is pro-
| iecied more than manufactures
But we are presented with a statement
of what was actually paid in 1918. We
are told that the whole amount of duties
paid for ,baty ear, which operated as pro
lection TO manufactures, was Sill, l4i ,753
| and for the projection OF agriculture
| 4,572,327e. We say little OF tie way, in
| which MIR. C.. has made out The last sum
| nj i, f,f Ia
| baccO, from rice, corn, lumber-we say
little of how he eked i, our, principally by
| charging 81 millions on spirits and ID OH
sugar. Waving however This exception,
| how then stands the account That we
| pay 3 times as much for manufactures as
| agriculture. But when we recollect TOO,
| that according TO MIR. C's own statement,
| there are in The u. S. 5000 900 agricuItu-
| risls, and about ! 100000 artists, manu-
facturers, &c. II appears hat there Is at
| least ten times as much protection TO
one manufacturer AS 10 one agricuiiuTist.
COMMERCE-lt is said tlat Americas
| commerce has received the special pro
lection at government b; that our own
ship ave the exclusive use of the coastine
trade; particular privileges in carryin z
| on The foIeign-and ii is asked why en-
| courage commerce more than manaf actures
The answer is already given by man,
| the friend OF the freedom of industry
| whom il las become fashionable with the
| advocates OF manufactures 10 disparage
and despise-we mean Adam Smith,
This great man, not withstandHg all his
pariiniiies To the freedom OF com
merce, was obliged to admit this very
| exception into his system. He saws,
there seem, however, TO be two cases in
which il will generally be advantageous
TO lag some burden upon foreign, for the
encouragement Of domestic industry. =
| The first is, when some particular sort of
industry is necessary for tie defence Of the
country. The defence of Great Britain,
| for example, depends very much upon
the number of It's sailors and shipping.
| The act OF navigation, therefore, very
| properly endeavors 10 give The sailors and
shipping ofG Britain lie monopoly of the
trade OF their own country, IN some Ga
SEES by absolute prohibitions, and in
others by heavy burdens upon the ship
ping OF foreign countries" Gle then
enumerates the principal provisions oil
this act. He dwells upon The resiric.
| tons il lays on the freedom of trade
but adds y " As defence, however, is
! of much more importance than OpuLence
The act Of navigation is perhaps the wis
est OF all The commercial regulations o
England I've cannot go exactly al
lengths with DR.. Smith, in securing g
monopoly of our trade To- our own vessel.
but the solid interest of tire country
demands that they should have exiraor
binary encouragement.-W look TO then
Tor many of Tho means of our defence
and opulence must yield 10 preservation
How far this tariff Till may go to sacri
flee this obiect-how far il may affec
our shipping Interest, is distinct brancI
OF the enquiry. II will cerlaisly affect i
deeply-and c0mmercialnen are so muc;
-..Ai. ..I IL ll,n LII