American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1827-08-21
FOR THE HMdN.

There has been a great deal said and written
about the " Wooens BILL perhaps enough area
ldy; but as there appears one view of it that has
escaped general comment, propose TO inquire -
whether ITS provisions are not oppressive to the
poor man and not 50 to the rich
have not the s.bill'' now before me, but the
memoranda made from that part of it which
saw in print. incline me to believe that i'll mpos
ing the duty, 1t provides for five classes of wool
ems, viz.--1st articles invoced at below 40 cents
the square yard to be deemed to have cost 40 cts.
and charged Sc 2-5 per cent. ad valorem. I'd.
Those costing between 40 cts. and 81 so to be
charged with like per centage on Sl,50. Sd.
The same per centage on those costing 81 80 to
$3.50, to be charged on $3.50 4th. The like
per ccntage on S4,oo for those costing 80, so to
81 90; and 5th. The same per cent. all valorem
on those costing S4,0O and upwards ;-exempli6ed
thus:
Suppose the cost Duty charge Makes
to be per yard. able on. at Sc 2.3 per CT. per yd.
15cts 20 cts. IA 2S Cts
As $3.50 SIS
255 zoo 14e 80
Cassinetts and coarse stuHs used by the poor,
are included in the Cd class cost from 40 cents
to Sl50. Superfine cloths will be understood to
be in the 5th class cost $500 and upwards. If
poor man buys 90 yards, the original cost Of
which is 10 cents, making $500. he must pay in
S11 90 ;-whole cost to the consumer of the 90
Yards coarse stuff, 1900.
If wealthy individual buys Q yards of cloth,
original cost $500, making $500, he will have to
nav also the duty OIL four dollars, viz, Stag 90
or 50 90 l-3 on wards; whole cost to the consul
mer Of fine cloth, Sl0,93 l-3.
1t will be perceived that the original cost in
both these cases is the same, viz. SS00-and that
the whole cost in the latter, does not amount to
as much as the duty paid by the poor man in the
former instance. IF this statement be correct, then
the woolcns bill" would be extremely oppressive
to the poor, while it would not touch the rich.
1t may be argued. however, that no evil of this
sort can grow out of such an arrangement, because
it amounts to prohibition Of the coarser articles,
such as are used by the poor. But question
arises--wil not the manufacturer, in ayailin. him
self of the advantage Of this prohibition, advance
hi, price the whole amount of this duty, and thus
leave the poor man in no better condition than
the woolens bill'' places him, suppose importa-
tions to continue under It'll Cannot the difficulties
which are apprehended from this measure, be obvi-
ated by laying the duty on the actual value of the
different articles a, the place and time of impor-
tati0n
| hone YOU will not infer from these remarks
that am in any degree opposed to the : Ameri-
can SYSTEM" shall rejoice to see it, not only in
the s.full tide of successful experiment." but per
manentIy and definitely established, to the com
pete protection of domestic industry OF every
Kind but let it be done without depressing the
poor, and entirely relieving the rich:
LUCULLUS.
MIR. Garter Beverly has instituted suit against
tbe Editor Of the Wheeling WAY Gazette. for a
libel, in charging the defendant with falsehood and