Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-07-04

renee, teven If its occurrence would not prO
duce the amendment desired,) we resort on
every occasion IT, caucus, and entail on our
selves necessity oft same course, forever.
II Is true that the people are not absolutely
hound by the recommendation ola caucus
but when we see how numerous and strong
are the advocates If that mode of selection,
and consider the effects of former decisions, it
cannot he doubted that caucus will be re-
sorted to- and that the caucus candidate will
he elected.ty) But even if what you deer,
the worst result should Occur-the election
OF n president by Congress, rs directed nv the
constitution, the evil will not he "a sufficient
excuse for the people to avert it by a dishon-
est vote. IL Il good chnice was within our
reach, it would afford serious ground to com
plain, that the vote of Virginia should weigh
no more than the vote of Delaware bnt for
the reasons before stated that the evil will be
small indeed il we must choose president
from Adams, Crawford, CLAW, Calhoun, and
Jackson. AT no possible iuncture can we meet
this dangerous part of the constitution with
less Inconvenience and hut little harm, and
great ultimate benefit, may be expected from
the exercise ola power so deservpdy(S) obi
Gus. A FARMER
POSTSCRIPT.
Since the the above was written, have
received the Enquirer ofJunr cath, containing
my second letter, with your remarks thereon,
arranged alphabetically from (d) to(q.) Ishall
not go with you regularly through your ~ b, C,
of Political Economy, (for which however, as
methodical beginHing, you deserve comnen-
dation,) and am willing to abide by the con-
tents of that letter, as a sufficient answer to
what you intended for its rsfutation.
icongratulatc you on your timely escape from
the perilons manufacturing ground which you
ncautiously and boldly assumed, in your zeal
for MIR. Crawford's defence. Though limited
my belief that you would retreat from that
position, rather than wait TO be driven out of
1t, did not suppose that it could have been
performed in such very quick time. However
your recantation is az full, and its tone as
snhdued, as could have asked for, and am
glad to sec that YOU are again AS fierce as
Bohadl against the bounty system. But you
Will again find yourselves unable to defend
Word, while you denounce protecting du
ties ; and your last remarks prove this truth,
when yon twice maintain the honesty of his
intentions, at the expense Of his understanding
You still persist IN installing my mraDng
as To the " moderate tone" oil one Of Mr. Craw-
ford's former Reports. after your error was
plainly pointed out when you contend that
1920 is later, or nearer the Presidential Elec-
ton, than 1921. am almost tempted to sus-
pect your mistake to be " ilful Bat as moth
ing can he gained for Crawfords defence,
from this unimportant passage, even as YOU
interpret 1t, dismiss the suspicion, and the
subject together.
fOn complain that asserted, without fur.
nishing sc an atom of proof" that the revenue
would be increased by reducing all duties
which now operate ",pholly or partially as Joun-
Tics for ma: ufaciures." It's true that no proof
was offered, or considered necessary, for IA
truth ct which no one is ignorant who knows
any thing of the general effects of protecting
duties, or their operation in this country. A.
you require it, will state an example The
cotton manufacture is by no means completely
established by the present high duties, as a
great proportion of what we consume, is still
obtained from Europe, and the manufacturer
continue to cry out for higher duties This
manufacture therefore is not independent of
the duty, but derives the full benefit of the
monopoly which was graDted--or otherwise,
our manufacturers could undersell the import
srs, even VI cottons were duty free. The du
ties on low priced cottons from India, formerly
yielded about s 100000 annually but since
they were increased TO the prohibiory mark
IN 1916, the treasury has lost the whole, that
the manufacturers may receive il in indirect
bounties. Would not the reduction of this
single duty have been ~ effectual mode of
recovering the annual million, as all Mr.. Craw-
benefits, would accrue 10 the treasury by the
reduction of all other duties which now protect
manufactures, and of course, by enhancing
prices, lessen importation. You say that to
increase the revenue by reducing rates ofduty,
imports must be proportionally increased,
'rhtch the means ~ The people might mol be com
peient 10 pay.Jor." There can he no question
hut we could afford to buy imports, when
reduced in price by reduction of duty, when
we are now able To purchase similar articles
at monopoly prices, from the manufacturers.
But on this head, Mcssrs. Editors, advise
you 10 be cautious: one more step in this
part 0i your argument, would have carried
you TO another bounty position, 1.-THE home
market, )from which you would have hadto heat
another hasfy refrea',as soon as you discover.
ed on what ground yon stood. Had YOU.
throughout your remarks, attended to- the
essential distinction between duties for reve.
nue., duties for protection, and nominal duties.
or those which yield neither revenue or t,ro-
tectinn, you would have had lsss difficulty in
admitting my positions, or in advancing yosiI
own.
You say" We are yptto know how far even
hr. Macon would have opposed n certain in
crease oftarlf for The sake 0frevenue T" You NAV
know Ivy examining his votes, that Mr. Macon
cannOt he gulled into supporting protecting
duirs, by the use ofthe words increase ofrtre.
nue. and that so far from iusiifying Mr.
Crawfords proposed augmentation nf duties.
he crposed The existing tariff in every shape
1t assumed. Farewell. A FARMER.
RgNARKs--by tie Editors
(q) Any mas may attempt tn u,s,oer bat does he
snrceed The thing IS tried every d,v m The ,ar
IL The Senate, or in me prcas Mr. Ross ansvrre MIR
| Mtdson's Hepor-but he might rs we'll have let Il
/ aiope.
tb) man tho nay deny sny hing There VIZ,
men wh0 denied that Washington during IN. war r
I Ne