Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-05-28

Vi ."e hume manufacturer, II there were a.
} ny such. And we ought to consider, also, thai
the priceof hemp at ST. Petersburg is incrcasec
~ all the expense of transportation from the
p'ace OF growth to that port; SO that probably
.ne whole coseof transportation, from the place
:" growth to our market, including our duty
equal to the first cost of the article or in 9th
er words, is protection in favor of cur own pro-
duct OF 100 per cent.
ana since 1t is stated that we have great guam
.',es OF hne land for the production of hemp, of
winch have no doubt, the question rccnrs arby
IS It not produced2 Ispeak of the crater yotted
he,nP, for it IS admitted that that which is dew
routed IS not sufficiently good for the requisite
4 purposes cannot say whether the cause be
IN climate, In the process of rotting, or hat else
out the fact Is certain, that there is no Ameri-
can water rotted heinpin the market. We are
4 acung, therefore, upon hypothesis. Is it not
seasonabie that those who say that they can pro-
duce the article, shall at leastprove the truth of
that allegation before new taxes are laid On
those who use the foreign commodity Suppose
this bill passes the price of hemp is Immediate
~ raised Si4 80 per ton, and this burden falls
Immediately on the slip builder; and no part of
1t, for the present. will go for the benefit of the
American grower, because he has none of the
article that can be used, nor is it expected that
much of it will be produced for considerable
time. Still the tax takes effect upon the impor-
kentucky farmer to receive an additional Sd
on his ton OF hemp, 'ctencve;' he :aay BE cJie TO
71tsc and n.anlJirctuYe it, pay, in the mean time.
an equal sum per ton into the Treasury on ali
the imported hemp which they are still Obliged
to use; and this is called "protection!n Is this
Just or fair? A particular interest is here bur-
dcncd, not only for the benefit of another parti-
cnlar interest, but burdencd also beyond that
| for the benefit of the Treasury 1t is said TO
| he iE0pDrfant for ho counfr1- tb,t AZ.
should be raised in it than let the country bear
the expense, and pay the bounty. If it should
| be the good of the whole, let the sacrifice be
made by the whole, and not by part. If be
thought useful and necessary, from political con-
sideration, to encourage tbe growth and manu-
facture of hemp, government has abundant
means of doing it. Itmight give direct boun-
ty, and such measure would, at least, distri-
butte the burden equally; or, as government it
| selfis great consumer of this article, If might
stipulate to conGne its own purchases to the
| home product, 80 soon as it should be shewn to
be of the proper quality. / see no objection to
this proceeding, lift be thought ODE an object to
encourage the production. 1t might easily, and
perhaps properly, be provided, by law, that the
Navy should be supplied with American hemp,
the quality being good, at any price not exceed
I ing, by more than given amount, the current
price of foreign hemp in our market Every
thing conspires to render some such course pre-
fcrable TO the one now proposed. The encou
ragcmcnt IN that way would be ample, and, i
the experiment should succeed, the whole OBJ
ject would be gained; and lift should fail no con
siderable loss or evil would be felt by any one.
stated, some days ago, and wish to renew
the statement, what was the amount of the pro-
posed augmentation. of the duties on iron and
hemp, in the cost of vessel. Take the case OF
a common ship, of 500 tons, not coppered, nor
copper fastened. 1t would stand thus, by the
present duties.
143 Tons of iron, for hull, rigging,
and anchors, at SIS. per ton Sal7 so
10 Tons of hemp, at $50 300 90
40 Bolts Russia duck, al 81 80 90
90 Bolts Ravens duck, at 81 25 e5 90
On articles of ship chandlery, cabin