Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-02-24

luton. He called upon the gentleman from |
Pennsylvani to shew that there were facts in |
the present case, and, If that could be establish
cd, he for one, would vote in favor Of the propo-
sed duty, it the article could bc manufactured
o a quality any thing, like equal to the foreign
article. Mr.B. sadhc had attachment to foreign
manufactures or to foreign interests, had been
rather ungenerously suggested in debate yester-
day. There was member on this floor vino
was actuatcd by considerations of that kind.
The opponents Of this bill upon principle were
as much attached to American productions as the
gentleman who made the remark, and had slIewn
II on all occasions III defence of the interests and
rights of the country. MIR. Is. said he did not
like these allusions, and he hoped that in the flu
ture discussion of tins BILL they would be avoid
5 ell.
Mr.. Il. said he would not now make any OBJ
servations Oh the general principle of this bill.
Hc had many reasons, which perhaps in time he
might present to the House, to shcw the evil con-
sequences of this bill, and that it ought not to
pass in any shape whatever.
Mr.. Tod said, it must be adrni ed that cotton
basging was an article Indispensable to cotton
planters, and that, if supply of il cannot be
furnished by the manufacture of our own coun-
try, the duty either ought not to be agreed to,
or the time, IN which it is TO operate, ought to be
extended. But MIR. Il. said, it would not do to
say to tins House that the states of Kentucky &
Ohio could not make all the cotton bagpiup
wanted for all the cotton growing states i'm the
Union, tor he said, it was easier 10 make bag
ging for a million pounds of cotton, than it was
to raise ten thousand pounds OF cotton. Mr.. T.
SAID he knew very well that this additional duty
would Oblgc the constituents ofthe gentleman
to pay more for their bagging than they now
pay. ltior this they had no equivalent, the du-
ty would be unjust, and hardship upon them.
Inc question, however, was, have they not al
ready an equivalent? Mr.. L. contendcd that
they have. The consumption of cotton, by the
people of the United States, is to the amount of
one third of the whole quantity raised in the
country. The greater part of this CONSUMPTION
oil cotton Is by the people who do not raise any
OF the article. 1t was notorious that there was
more cotton consumed in the state of PennsyI-
vanla than IN all the states that raise cotton in
tae Union; and they pay protecting duty to
those who raise this cotton, of three cents mar
pound, which, it would be agreed, was in I.cr :,
bounty OF so much upon the production of the ar
ucle because we know, said he, that it can be
afforded to be raised in South America, and in
some parts of the West Indies, at three cents
per pound cheaper than in the United States.
prehaps because the slaves in that country were
treated with greater severity than in this, har-
der worked, and more scantily clothed and Door
~ led. AT any rate, those countries can under
sell our cotton growers. For their protection.
however, SAID Mr.. Tod, we have laid a duty of
uree cents per pound on the importation of TO
reign cotton, which, trust, will ever continue
to be laid and thus the people of the state of
pennsylvania, and of other states. for every,
Pound OF cotton they consume, pay bounty OF
three cents TO the people of the South And
DONG tins, they now ask of the pcoole of the
south TO repay about hundredth part of this
bounty IN the shape of 4 duty on cotton baorpn
rms the gentleman from Louisiana considered =
hardshP-Mr. L. could not consider if 81. il
was mere reciprocity. 1t was an eyertion of
the power conferred on government for the mr.
pose of compelling different sections of tine
country to doJustice, in some DEGREE. to one
another by reciprocating advantages i'm their in
tercourse, &c. lfany part of the country rc
CURED protection fthis sort it was the state of
Kentucky. All the produce which that sta,e
can send to market was not Of one-iifth the va
lue OF the exports of domestic produce from
georgia, or from South Carolina. Yet Ken
lucky Is superior III numbers, and in physical &
moral strength. Why should we, by the cdec,
OF legislation, give to one part of the country SO
decided an advantage over the other In con
sequence of the disadvantages under which tb,
"est iooofed III respect to its products there
haa been great distress and depression in the
state OF Kentucky. Specie was almost unknown
IN the state. So much was this the case that No
long time ago, application was proposed TO he
'' " ''ie SSictti government TO dispense with
specie IN the payment OF the postage on their lei
ferS. Ihey have not the same advantages rs
the cttizans OF Georgia and South Carolina and
LOUISIANA, and Alabama, and Mississippi: that
is thcy nave no fellow citizens whom they ran
compel 10 become customers to them: as they
'are 10 the cotton growers. From these and o.
ther considerations, Mr.. T. was clearly for piy-
ing this encouragement to the manufacturers of
the West.
My. Crownenshield, of Massachusetts. said h.
thought the gentleman from PENNSYLVANIA was
totally mistaken in regard to the matter of fact
when he stated that duty of three cents ner
pound Is imposed as protecting duty on cotton.
because cotton would be raised in South Ameri
Ca, the West Indies, &c. cheaper than here
The Cottonof Bombay and Bengal might perhans
be as cheap as ours, but twas well known tn he
inferior in quality to ours. Mr.. G.. asserted
that, with the exception of those countries. there
is no country from which cotton can he inonort
ed SO cheap as 1t Is raised here, by 3 cents ner
pound. The gentlenan's reasoninps, founded
on contrary suppoStion, therefore. must ro for
nothing; and me was at liberty to make what Use
lie pleased of the information now given.
MT. Tod, referring to documents before him.
said that in one of the countries from which The
greatest importation OF cotton by the merchants
had been made, the article was purchased at Iesa
than 10 cents per pound. IT did not at the .;,no
sell, in any part of this country, within 3 cents
of cents per pound.
Mr.. Hamilton said the argument of the oen-
ucInan from Pennsylvania was perfectly consis-
tent with the whole scope of this bill: that if nv
TIE laws Of God and Nature any part of our
country should not cniov canal ,d,,,,,t,o,o- e