The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1830-06-16

would at once bear upon this country and reduce
the price still lower. If then the planter of the
south, as the gentleman says, is borne down and
ground into the dust by the tariff; if he is robbed
of the fruits of his honest labor and driven to des-
peration, il produces the same pernicious effect
upon the planters of other countries-for they get
the same price and no more; and that price is
measured out and regulated by our tariff. This,
believe is giving wider scope to the operation of
our laws, and diffusing their power more broadly
than has ever been imagined by the most enthus-
astic opposer of the tariff.
IMr. M'Dufie rose to explain, because he per-
ceived he said, that the gentleman from Massachu-
sets intended to answer his argument fairly The
gentleman had stated, that cotton of the same quail
ity bears the same price, come from where it might
-agreed-but the southern planter receives goods
on which he pays duty of two hundred and fifteen
per cent while the planter of Brazil gets goods on
which he pays only fifteen per cent; that is the
reason why the southern planter is ground down,
and the other is moi.
Mr. Davis resumed. shall consider that by and
bye. said, if the position of the gentleman is well
founded he proves that our tariff bears on all cotton
growing countries with the same weight as on the
Southern States, because the price of all cotton of
the same quality, come from where it may is the
same Now, if the duties are deducted from the
raw MATERIAL and paid as the gentleman asserts by
the grower, because the purchaser controls the
markets then it is clear, that less would be de-
there would be discrimination in the price-a diff
ference in the value but have shown that there
is no difference, and the gentleman admits it, 1t
would seem therefore to follow, that duties on
British merchandise do not regulate the price of
cotton, and have little to do with it, MR. MDuf.
fie again interposed to explain His argument was
not that the Brazilian grower could not raise his
price, but that the American grower could not l
fear do not fully comprehend the gentleman from
South Carolina. l was endeavoring to follow out
his argument, and to show some of the difficulties
he must surmount to maintain it. | understood
him to state in the outset that exports pay the du
ties on imports; and to deduce as an Inference
from the fact, THAT the south paid into the Treasury
two-thirds of the of the United States be-
the cotton, rice, and tobacco raised and sent
abroad by that portion of the Union, constitutes
two-thrds of the exports. | understand him also
to declare, in the commencement of his speech
that the old notion that the consumer of imported
merchandise rays the duties by giving an increased
price for what he buys, founded in mistake and
misapprehension. In confirmation of these declar-
atoms understood him to say, and repeat that it
made no difference whether cotton. rice, and to-
bacco were taxed to the amount of sixteen millions
of dollars in the hands of the growers before they
were shipped, or that sum collected on i'm
ported merchandise, bought in foreign markets with
the avails of these articles for in either case the
whole loss fell on the planter. From the assump-
ton of these grounds by the gentleman, thought
was justified in inferring, that he meant to declare
that the consumer did not pay the duty, but the
grower of the raw material did; for | could not
persuade myself into the belief that he meant to as
sert that less than three millions of inhabitants con-
sumed forty millions worth of imported articles
while the remaining nine millions consumed only
to the amount of twenty millions. | was lead also
to this conclusion, because the gentlemen said
that the manufacturer of England would throw the
duty upon the consumer by raising the pricesof the
articles on which the duty was imposed, if he
could but he could not do it because he could
not raise the price. Indeed the whole course
of his reasoning appeared to me to be based
on the hypothesis, that the price of the raw
material is reduced in the market by the tariff,
and thus the planter is subjected to great loss.
am not able to comprehend how the argument can
be explained upon any other suppositon, than that
the price of the exports is reduced in the foreign
market in the manner have described; for if this
be not the case, am at a loss to understand how
the gentleman can maintain, that the south pays
sixteen Millions or two-thirds of the annual reye-
nue., for if the burden be not forced upon them in
this manner, then they pay consumes only; but
the gentleman has repgdiated this false notion
He must be aware also, that the ratio of consump-
ton and expectation widely different; for ad-
hitting that less than three millions of popula-
ton furnish two-thfrds of the exports, yet every
body knows that the whole nation are consumers
Of imports, and probably the nine millions of per-
sons who export none of the cotton, rice, and to-
bacco, are the greatest consumers of foreign mer-
chandze. they live in a colder climate and have
more wants. But allowing that they consume only
an equal quantity, the argument of the gentleman
falls for instead of consuming forty millions out of
sixty, the south would then consume only fifteen
millions out of that amount. say, therefore, that
the main proposition that the south pays two-thirds
of the revenue, because they grow two thirds of
the exports, falls to the ground, unless it be
shown that they pay it in some other way than as
consumers.
But ! will, for the present, dismiss this part Of
the subject, and proceed to point out other obsta-
Giles, which must be surmounted in establishing the
doctrine which the gentleman appeared to me to
contend for, and which is surely set up by the Ex
position and Protest of the Legislature of his State
1t the purchaser of raw cotton, and other exports
IN the English market, has the power imputed to
him Of controlling the market, in such manner as
to reduce the value of our exports forty -fve per
cent as is alleged, because we collect forty-fve
per cent. on imports in this country if he can
thus at pleasure, cut down the value of our staples
then 1t follows, that he pockets the enormous profit
OF forty-hve per cent. on all the vast consumption
OF cotton goods in the British dominions for on
this consumption there is no impost and there is
no apology tor reducing the price of the raw ma
terlal which enters into it, because of our tariff
The reduction is to meet the duties here and here
only; but as it reaches all cotton, it produces this
result Ii 1t be true, has been asserted that the
SouScS d uSChne IN Vdlue OF exports OF
foryhve per cent? and if it be true as the gentle.
man from New York, Mr.. Cambreleng) has alleged
IN his report on commerce, that it gives to the
British manufacturer premium of 81 go on every
piece of broad cloth worth 50 the yard; the law
OF 1923, which seems to be in bad odour in Eng
land, ought 20 be esteemed by the people of that
country as more precious and valuable than the ac-
QUESTION of the mines of South America. Yet
with all their sagacity in trade they are so stupid
as to overlook these vast advantages, and actually
compllin of our policy narrow, selfish, and lib
eral. They must be either short-sghted, or they
view the matter differently from gentlemen here.
Another objection to this kind Of reasoning is,
that 1t is utterly mpractcable to take the duties
on imported merchandise out of exports and apply
them IN the way supposed The whole scheme IS
founded on the idea, that he who exports the pro-
ducts OF this country to foreign markets must re-
ceiVe his pay in merchandise. Without stopping
to question the soundness of this position. will
ask the attention Of the Committee to one or two
considerations, which will show that no such pro.
cess reduction in price can take place A cargo
NN