Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-02

pensate for its evils. He should cndcavor 10 prove
that the expectation of any such indemnity, or any
other benefit, was entirely iailacious. But before
he entered ON this pa.t of tue SUI iec,. .c would take
occasion to remark, that, il there really was no
compensatory circumstances in this SYSTEM, the
manner in which the immediate loss, which wits ad-
mitted, vas distributed iii the community,-was an
inquiry of the highest importancc, an inquiry in
vo!vins the Justice OF the measure, & the right ofthc
government, to take tine property of one citizen with
out compensation, AMI give 1t II another; and 10
reduce the mass OF ndtional wealth without Il pub
lie benefit. With u view to shcw in what manner
tins loss is distributed, hc would read, &; he should
not be accused of cgo,;sm,) from the report OF the
committee on agriculture, made in 1927, an extract
which contained 4 more precise and accurate Illus
tration OF the disiribu;ive operation of protecting
duties, thau any he could then think OF; ana which
he was bcii to say, but for Il single error OF Inodvcr-
tence, not affecting the general CONCLUSIONS, which
had been pointed on, To him by an honorable friend
from Virginia, (A!r. Rivcs) would be- found entire
~ uucXccptionablc:
Tho first position that 1t will be attempted to
prove IS, that the necessary effect OF an increase of
duties Is tn diminish, both Immediately and MI
i~intdtei.y, the amount of national wealth. The loss,
however, of the nation, the loss of those who pay the
duties, and the gam of those who rcccice them, do
not always correspond, but vary with particuiarc cir
cumStanccs. In what manner this loss and gain
are distributed in society will be best illustrated by
an example. If, for instance, u community of four
persons were engaged in an occupation which ena-
bied them to realize sir per cent. on equal capitals,
and three OF them were to give the fourth one per
cent. or onc-tttTd Of ore per cent. each, to enable
him To carry on an employment in which, unassist-
at, he could only make IRE per cent. it is evident
that the loss of tho contributors would be one per
cent. and that il would be exactly the loss of the
community, whilst the :gain of the receiver would
be nothing; and, unless that part of his profits,
which he received from the others, was as produce
lively employed as it was by them, he might be a
loser, and thus still! further augment the loss of the
community. But this is a case that would not be
apt to occur. The fourth individual must have
something more than sir per cent. which, Inc already
made, to induce him TO abandon his old occupations,
and pursue Il new one, say screen per cent. In this
case the others would have to pay him tito-fhirds of
one PcT corr. each. II Is obvious, now, that the loss
OF tue contributors would be frO per cent. that the
gao. oi the receiver would be one per cent. and that
1t would correspond with the loss of the community,
which would also he one per cent. or the difference
between the productive value of his old and new
employment. If this bounty were given TO induce
an lndiyiduol to continue an occupation in which
he was already cng2gased then, although the con-
tri5utor woold fose all lie paid, aud the receiver
would gan IT, the community would lose nothing.
as there would only he n transfer of wealth from
one to another. This, however, would not be the
case WIFI Il manufacture thus continued by q boun-
ty- There would be al Immediate loss, occasion-
co oy TIC increased cost of consumption nor would
I""'f' W HHihS DiS CiIiillOIn1cnt so much
more prohtablc than another, without lis ATTRACTING
capital from that other, aud this would be the source
"i mhu'iefauie other losses, iicrcafterto be noticed.
!" the case that has been stated, ii is clear that the
'oS' Oh 'he contributors IS exactly triot they pm,
the gan OF the receiver i their loss. less ,l,c J;G;r-
nee between the productive value of his old and
new employment, AMI the loss OF the community ;G
precisely ms d!GCrepcs. In manufactures. such
would he the operation OF a dury that was prohibit
rory "a guy that was merely protective, would
permit a portion NJ t!;c commodities consumed to be
oo"Shf oil Foreigners, and thus 4 part of it would 90
into the Treasury. This would no, vary IN. MO-
portion OF the loss and gain of the contributors and
eCSiNcfS' nut would. Ill some degree, increase the
oS d me community, as composed IL OF both, as this
portion oil the duty would be less productivcIy en-
J!oyed by the government. than it would have boc,
iau IL remained IN the hands OF either of the parties.
!Als does no; prove that prohibitorv ar. bc,fe, ,b,u
protecting duties. There are other consequences
".''I'' ''' "u,'eS injurious IN proportion to their
''f'""t. 49,. these observations may he applied.
>'i"a!tS H1pGandS,C 10 the consumers. The mn, mn
iic'uFefs' ana the nation, under tn: protecting duty
system. Two descriptions of person, wouId d.,;,1.
ne Dcncht;-l lew who Continue their old cmolov-
.iehts- dUi Il great many who engage in new ones.
In Dntn caseS, the loss of the consumer ic WIN, In
pays and is u'iredeemed Ivy any circumstances
Whatever. lii tie first case. the loss of Tho ~ ,,;o,
arises from the increased cost of corsu,rnt;,, :,
Nc second, IL arises from this cause and the din;r.
'i''' productive value of the new e!nploylncuts of
'''c'aty- In the FIRST case the gain Of the manuf,c-
tt!rer Is the loss oi the consumer, less the increased
vost 81 MS own coi'sumptihn in the second it Is this
loss clii'iIiislcd by the sauGc cause, and the diu,;n-
shed productive value of his labor. Buf. hc.;Jos
these erect losses, there are others indirect and col.
lateral, which are, however, not less inevitable.
losses which affect the consumers, and. in con-. 10
gree ultimately reach the manufacturers ,bero-
selves" "N"
rms statement left entirely out of view all those
ihnlFect ana collateral losses, arising hon tb, de-
struction and suspension OF the fixed and circulating
capital of the country; from the dimiuut;or Of cnte
SuHiption, ana consequently Of production: from,
forcing commercial capital abroad in search of ON
pioymcnt; and from the general starvation of In
Sihcss produced by the compulsory transfer of pro-
pcrty, and by the reluctant cyertious Of v;carious
ana unrewardcd industry These and MANY other
evii consequences Were inevitablc- but thew v,c,,
nhaehnabie and incaiculable, because ;l,cv ,yaro
'WrncasuraOle, and progressive. Each ,,ieht fur
niS'i matter ior a separate argument: bat Ee ur,n,
10 co!iIiiie hi'',scii to the Immediate, direct, and adj
mittcd loss winch, though inferior in magnitude IN
'Ht coiiatefai losses, was susceptible of more stric,
calculation. If ne could shcw tina. there wac ~,
compensation Tor this, IT woulG be cnou,b. Tho
ceVe'opcmen: OF all its unhappy consequence, miob,
aggravate the incxpedieucy Of the policy, bat co9ld
nov render 1t more clearly unjust and absurd.
am aware, continued Mr.. G.. that every arn,.
meut winch does not profess TO be founded ON sto-
w ''','' O"t Appeals TO general principles, is
SuSfnat'zed by the advocates of this system. ay
theoretical. But this is only one of the ,rtifccs
oil the khetoricians, whereby a speaker cndcovnurs
to weaken and discredit q charge to which he knonys
himself to be liable, by bringing i, acairs, bis nJ.
vsrsary IN the %InyIdious scrsc of the tern, thew
arc certainty more liable to the charzc than thc;,
opponents. The truth is. both uartics bayc ,tn,
RES u they have general principlcs.-Thc differ
enc Is that the theory Of the enemies of the sve-
Ten mas been approved and confirmed by Inc ro,So,
ana experience Of mankind, while that of lis friends
mas bGcn condemned and cxplodcd-has been prov