Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-06-08

AZ.
be more utterly faacous, than the idea that the faith
oil the Government concerned in the maintenance of
an unjust and oppressive system, simply because il has
been adopted. II that the Government is some
ideal being at Washington, who has persuaded the
nuiacturers and others concerned invest their capt.
tai in certain pursuits, by giving them the assurances
that the high duties would be maintained. Now, Sir,
what is the Government by which this pledge has been
given 10 the manufacturers! Is not composed OF the
Representatives of these very manufacturers, and of
the interests associated with them making that
interested aud dcspotic majority, by which the
doub;edrighs and interests Of The minority have been
sacrlhced' And Sir, is ii 10 he endured that these
should gravely get up and urge their OF inus
uce and oppression, az creating pledge TO maintain
and extend their encroechmen,s upon the rights Of the
minory! Sir, protest against doctrine which tbns
sanchss and corsscra'es to-day, what admitted
be injustice aud oppression yesterday.
What, then, let us briefly inquire, is the tendency,
and what has been the eject, OF the high duties impo-
Their domestic productions? IL is too plain TO admit OF
argument-indeed it has been candily admitted by the
Chairman OF the Committee Manufactures, in former
discussions that domestic product can only be pro-
tecied by prohibiting the foreign articles that would
come in competition with them He openly avowed
that he aimed a, prohibition, and it would have been
folly 10 have aimed at less if he really meant 10 give
protection. No duty can give any protection TO any
domestic fabric, which does not exclude similar TO-
reign fabric; and in the very nature of things the a.
mount OF protection cannot exceed the amount Of pro-
hbion though may and generally does fall short Of
it, You cannot create a demand, Tor example, for any
domestic manufacture, by legislation, otherwise than
ny foreign manufacture; and as
legislation is calculated TO enhance the price of the
icle, you certainly cannot create by il demand fer q
greater amount of the domestic fabric than you exclude
OF the foreign Ii may be confidently assumed, there
fore, that whatever may be the of iron and SALT
and manufactures of cotton, wool iron and hemp which
have been brought into existence in the United States
by the system OF high protecting duties, al least IN
quail amount OF foreign rival productions has been ex-
cluded by those duties. 1t will not be deemed an ex-
uavagan, estimate 10 suppose that the protecting sys-
tenn has caused TO be produced annually articles of these
lars, which would not have been produced but for the
protection given them. II follows then, corollary
that AT least equal amount Of these articles of foreign
production, must have been excluded. But these are
the very articles which receive from Great Britain
France, and Holland, in exchange for agricultural
staples. by excluding twelve millions of such articles,
therefore, necessarily diminish the foreign demand
for staples and principally cotton 10 that amount
There is scarcely any limit the consumption Of our
cotton in Europe, bat that which imposed by re-
fusa 10 take manufactures in exchange for it, IT, there
lore, we were permitted 10 import the 1000, 900
worth OF manufactures that have been excluded by
commercial restricons rather they had been
excluded by those restrictions il be reasonably
doubted that should have a demand i'm Europe
for 400 600 bales Of cotton beyond the existing demand
Even therefore, il grant, what is the fact that
the whole OF the domestic demand for cotton has been
produced by the prohbi'ory effect our tariff il will
follow that have gained market for 50 600 bales
by sacrificing for 900. From this estimate il
will be seen that the prohibition of foreign imports has
resulted in curailing the entire demand for cotton i'm
the markets of the whee world, including our own
two hundred and fifty thousand bales In addition
them to the annual burthen he bears, in paying the du-
ties epon the imports he is still permitted 10 bring into
the country, the planter sustans annual loss of
$3.50 900, being the value of the cotton for which he
has lost market in consequence OF the unjust resrrc-
tons imposed upon las lawful by the suicidal
policy of his own government.
think Mr.. Chairman have by this time satisfied
the committee that have not exaggerated the bur-
thens OF the Southern planters in stating that duty of
40 per cent upon the amount of their exports NAV be
taken as the measure of those burdens i have not
the slightest doubt that have greatly ider estimated
those buhens, looking TO the operation of your impost
duties in the double aspect OF system of and
system of protection Having now, Sir, made the
case OF the Southern understanding demonstrated
the grossly unequal and oppressive operation of your
whole Tariff system, upon the productions OF their law
iu industry, will proceed TO the conside ration of tho
principal ground upon which the advocates OF this sys-
tenn have attempted TO rest it, measure OF Justice
and expediency II is almost universally conceded by
all the supporters of the protecting policy from Alex
ander Hamilton down, that il all other nations would
throw of the restrictions they have imposed upon COM
merce it would be wise in the United States TO pursue
the same policy. But it is contenced, that long as
other nations continue 10 impose restrictions upon the
free importation OF productions, il is xpedient and
necessary, that should countervsl their regulations
by imposing similar restrictions upon their productions
Now, Sir, if am not greatly deceived in the view
have taken OF the matter this Il The capital which
lies at the foundation of the Whole protecting system
And rothing will, perhaps tend more clearly to expose
the true genius and character OF that system than
briel examination and OF this i waive
for the present belonging to another branch of in
quiry, the policy Of couneTvaipg regulations, calcu-
lated and des gned 10 induce oher nations TO abandon
their restrictions No preends that ours are Of
that character, either to their design or tendency
As question of political economy, then, main
tain that the restrictions which foreign nations impose
upon the mpor Of any production Of ours, in pur-
suing their established policy, furni.hes the slight
est ground, upon tie Of interest eXpediency,
for imposing similar restrictions upon of the pro-
auctions Of those for eign nations ! will Illustrate my
view by cons the operatiou of the British corn
laws upon the Of the United States. Let it,
them be granted that Great Britain has absolutely pro-
hibted the importation of foreign grain. No one pre-
tends that she has not uudOubed right under the
law Of nations, TO do We have no Just cause TO
complain OF it, Indeed her policy in fhis respect is
not only inflated, but applaudcd by the advocates Of
the restrictive system here. Then, Sir, the exclusion
OF grain from Great Britain, is simply fact to 10
considered by this Government, without any regard 10
the that have produced it, II is precisely the
the increased fertility of Great Britain, resulting from
newly discovered manure had enabled the farmers Of
that country 10 produce grain cheaply can be
! produced in Kentucky or Ohio. There could be no
more ehecua exclusion Of grain than would result
from this. And yet can hardly suppose there is
in the world, WHO would be absurd as to contend
that these agricultural Improvements in Great Britain
would furnish any colorado grOuAd for excluding her
manufactures; or, in other wo ls, for prohibiting the
free exchange Of those OF cur projuci"aJ, which she
might still require To- sueh OF her own she could
most ndqsGtageousiy give us for them Now, il seems
impossible for human ingenuity 10 draw any substantial
discrimination between the case have supposed and
that of the British laws. In both instances we
lose market for grain; in The from natural and
in the other, from artificial causes; aud the question