Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-03-22


versity i'm the forms of their governments, and
they recommend the adoption of two resolu-
uons-0ne IN favor of recognition, and the
other, directing the Committee Of WAYS and
Means TO report ii hill appropriating s Toe, 900
to enable the President to give effect TO such
recognition"
TO THE EDITORS OF THE ENQUIRER
GENTLEMEN: Not being in the habit of
reading either the Aurora or the journal from
winch the article headed argument against
net IS extracted, am indebted to your po-
lIteness for an opportunity of perusng it.
This article it may be proper to premise, is a
repiy 10 former communication of mine, and
the object of my opponent is to shew that my
arguments are invaldatcd by his facts. Let
us see how far this is the case.
MY first position is in effect, for the patti
cuiar numbers which employed tn illustrate
1t, are immaterial,) that the agriculturists of
our own country vastly s,rpass the manufac-
turers in point of numbers That this is a fact.
must, think, be evident, according to any
explanation" of the census which can posi-
bly, be given
My first position is, that this enormous ma
inriiy have consented TO tax themselves for
the benefit the minority. That duties, term
ed protecting duties, have been imposed by
Congress, and that the intended, as well as
The actual effect of these duties, is tn enable
our manufacturers to obtain higher prices for
thcif goods, than they could otherwise receive
IS undcnlable But, ifthe cost of any COM
modIty he augmented, is it not clear, ,st, that
such an augmentation acts as tax upon the
consumers of that commodity and 2dIy, that
the body of consumers in our country are the
aSrcutu'ists? However wonderful therefore
II may appear to my critic, and can assure
MN IL is not more wonderful to him, than it is
to myself, the truth seems TO he, that the ma
lonty have consented to take money out of
their own pockets, to put it into those of the
minority.
Having thus. trust, shewn, that my copcIu-
SONS are warranted by my premises, and that
my premises are facts, too notorious 10 be
denied, shall next inquire into the reality of
the aiedged facts which have been brought a.
gainst roe.
Since the imposition of high duties on cot
tons imported from India, better articles which
VIII answer the same purpose are, it seems,
manufactured at home, and at a cheaper rate.
rms am not disposed to controyert. But
when 1t IS further stated, that this reduction
vi price has been caused by the high duties i'm
question, must pause little. That high du.
lies do not necessarily produce any such effect
is certain, and even if ii has so happened with
Is
little worth in general argument But is it
true even in this particular case? | suspect
not. My opponent says that in consequence
81 these high duties, the India merchants be-
inS no longer able To carry on their custOma-
ry trade, have been compelled to invest thei,.
capitals III manufacturing establishments, and
that the competition thus induced has so great
~ lowered the Price ofdomestic cotton fabrics.
Now If this be 81, high duties instead of being
beneficial TO our manufacturers are actually in
FURIOUS to them, the domestic capital thus forced
sRfo competition ,cih them reducing their profits
more, than the foreign capital and ariifcers
tO'th ichich they had previously TO contend, had
been abie to do: were this the fact, the incessant
clamor for higher tariff would long since
have ceased.
But, in truth, doubt exceedingly whether
the supposed conversion has taken place. af
least to any great extent and am inclined TO
thlnk, that my opponent has inferred this fact
as he terms If, instead of obtaining it from
direct and competent testimony. Be this AS
VI may, however, 1t is certain, that some other
circumstances have occurred, since the impe-
sitIon OF the duties in question, which must
De taken into the account in explaining the
TALL IN the price of cotton goods In the first
place, the cost Of the raw material has lower
ed at least, SO per cent Secondly, provisions
nave been down TO less than half their former
price, and lastly, labour is also cheaper That
these things should not have had great in1u-
ence IN bringing about the result under coDsi-
deratiOD, is incredible.
But admit that ] am mistaken, and that the
high duties have forced the India merchants
to become manufacturers, this is but trihing !;
the burthen from one part Of the community
to another and in either case the impoIicy
and Injustice Of such measures is the same
10 cOerce capitalists, to invest their money
IN less profitable employment land unless
the employment be less lucrative, no coercion
VIII be necessarily operates as a tax, precisely
equal to the difference between the returns of
the old employment and the new. But has
government any right then, to prevent indv-
duals from reaping the fair returns Of their
capitals and skill, or is it just to tax one part
OF the community for the benefit Of another
part Yet such is the fact, il merchants are
Obliged to turn manufacturers in order that
farmers may have cotton goods the cheaper.
II Is ~ vain TO reply that though individuals
may be injured, the country is benefited. In
justice never yet did good to any country,
and It might be easily shewn, that the present
case, be it the farmers or the merchants who
Arcorsug IN the census, the manufacturers amount IN
1871 while there are 2Oe5199 Of sgrcnliurists
ind nv the report from tic treasury iii the export
o specie Tor the st amounted upwars Of 10000.
900 and il heretofore, much exceeded < SOOi00o
and that Tor one ONLY. and that year confessed
was one OF great oyerraing. fewer coffns nseouent
" brought from lrda. more orotbcr s oro,bly
imported from fhcncf