Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-04-13


cessary information, as al, these complicated
subjects, each individual in lis own immediate
ana separate pursuit, has, OF may have, all the
iIIorina'ioN required, IN relation to his business
40 individuals, then, let us leave il, with the
assurance thot, as they have the desire TO give
.'e!r CAPITA anu Labor the most profitable direc-
uoh, So taey can nue.. mere surely find uttilat
anpNci'ion than we can. If government inter
iefe' IL must be either b. turning to ruanuG,c-
lures capital not now So invested, or By a;iine.
mai which IS now so enploycd If the reason.
ing which have jus; presented be correct, then
as 10 inc new capital, tiic interference is miuri
o"d' because The individual would nave SO apro-
priateu ~ II such appropriation had been the
most neneilcia!. is 70 the capital already in
vested IN manufactures, II il already produced 10
1' owner an average profit, then nothing could
&c more unjust than to increase that profit at the
expense OF fine community. If il did not pro-
duce The average proft. then il is clear that the
same caPitalwoui contribute more to the stock
Of pubic wealth, lift were applied in some ether
WAY, -stse intesssseaos oss sovern,nent must
then eltherbe unjust O, injurious. But issaisi
That fho community VIII be coc,pensatedby any
temporary loss arising iron; ihc aid TO inanufac-
lures, by the ultimate reduction in price, pro-
ducec by The domestic competition. And. ia
proof OF ah's, we are triunpl.antl, told of the
reduction IN the price OF coarse cottons. In
the fist piacc would remark that, however the
pr1ce may be reduced, this very bill proposes to
increase the minimum upon coarse cottons which
would seem TO shew that they vet wanted more
protection. But let me ask, if the coarse cot
tons have fallen in the United States, have they
not also fallen in England, and to price lower
IMAM with u.s. The best proof which gentlemen
could give US, would be, TO repeal the minimum :;
hear from. ] do not mean 10 contend, sir. that
domestic competition will not ultimately reduce
the pricc-but our misfortune is this, that the
high profits at rstresulting from increased du-
ue;, allure many persons 30 embark in the com
petition insufficient or small capital or carry
too inuch capital into that pursuit. and when the
rcdhctonlnPrlce commences before it has reach
cd ITS minimum, and such an one as the foreign
article might be bought fox, the small capitalists
are oYerpowered IN the competition, by the large
ones, and they again Cry out 20 u.s. Ielp us or
we sink. This is not fancy, sir. but fact. The
Wa!tha,n factory asks for no aid the memo
oria from Delaware does. 1t asks for protec-
ton TO the Woolen manufactures, that a part of
the redundant capital invested inthosc of cotton.
may flow over into those Of wool. Thus, sir. we
go On, IN continued circle. Large profits. IL
seems, allure too much capital to given pursuit.
Assoon as by competition those Profits begin 20
decline, and We hope TO realize tic premise of a
minimum prlcc, and thus receive the equivalent
lor our loss In The iEta7cediate high prices, we
arc caiica OF to sa5c those who are likely to be
cE":r!c1in Tie struggle; that IL We must sustain
all our manufacturers against foreign competi
ton; and we must sustain the smaller capitalists
against the domestic competitions.
But, il is said chat this system will increase do
| mes,c industry. IF have succeeded in shew-
ing that it will not increase the Public weaItg, o,
capital oftllc nation, then sir, it is utterly i'm
possible that it can increase the national INDUS
| try; 1t Is the capital which calls that industry
| INTO action, which furnishes its inducement aud
ITS reward; and, to say that labor will be IN
creased, whilst the capital Of the country IS not
only increased, but, as think have shown. is
! diminished, would be as great solecism in DO
ht!cai economy, as to say that population could
be increased, whilst the food OF the country was
diminished as the food supports population. So
capital supports labor. 1t will certainly divert
portion of laborfron one pursuit. to another; II
VIII certainly increase the profits of the mann
featuring capitalists; but 1t does not increase
the whole stock of The wealth of the nation: if
gives to all the laborers the usual rate Of wares
about equal to their maintenance; and tina;
maintenance they might have acquired in some
Ii is argue! that it viii furnish better and a
more steady market TO the agriCulturists Let
us examine this pretension. The Agricultural
produce consists either of food, or of the mate
riais OF manutacturc Far as it consists of food.
there is no increase OF Consumers; for as IL has
been well said III one of the memorials sent ia
tins House, we now feed them ali, and we can
do no more. The argument, however proceeds
upon The assumption, that portion of labor
nov engaged In agriculture, will be transferred
to manufactures; and thus, the quantity Of aeri.
cultural produce being diminished, there will be
better price for the remainder. This is in.
deed conso!ing promise! With countless NIL
lions CT fertile land yet unCleared a part of that
nowl: cultivation is to be deserted then It must
remain III state of waste and desolation, for.
whence Is to be derived the labor to cultivate it,
IN lieu OF that which has gone TO manufactures,
Gan tnat system be sound one, which proposes,
not only to arrest our progress in clearing new
iaiids, bat even to diminish tie area Of our pre-
sent cultivation
But, after all, VIVA! is 10 be the number of our
new consumers? We have TO data, on which
20 estimate, With any thing like accuracy, the
number OF persons engaged in manufactures.
1 speak now of regular manufacturing establish
ments Of articles for sale. The Committee OF
Commerce ana Manufactures, in 1915, reported.
there were then 1OC, goo persons, engaged in the
| cotton mandatory; probably the whole nun
Der employed in the diserent manufactures
might aow be estimated at 100000; but these
ought not to be included in or calculation, a,
they noy consume orr food, without zhe aid O
Tbs Bill. Let lis Suppose lnat the encourage.
riert Afforded by tnis bill, should, in sotne two
or three years, transfer 10000 persons from
! agriculture to manufactures. Here we have
( tin5 number ofnev consumers to feed. VIVA
pe:~2ptbc advantage, LET me ask, will this small
number afford 10 tie ayriculturists? Particu
larly, when the salao cause that creates lhi