Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-05-25

so neither IS t possible for prohibitions and restrictions of any sort, placed in the way of commerce, to multiply the products of the industry of d nation. Restrictions are nothing in the world but cutting off one of nations hands, or tying it behind it's back-and, there fore, to ascrbe the prosperity of Great Bri- tain to its corn-laws, or of France to it's pro- hibitions, is perfect idiocy. Their prosperity, like our own is to be solely ascribed to the great improvements which have been made in the abridgng of labor in the various de partments of industry'and enterprise, ,increas- cd skill, and to the advance of the arts scien- ccs, and philosophy, the combined powers of which have thus far proved an overmatch for all the dunces and knavcs, who, by thei, bungles and quackery, have been instrumen- tai in keeping back the march of improve ment in those three countries, which under wiser rulers, would have exhibited to the world far more stupendous examples of pros Perity.-Ban'aer of the Consultation.
 By the Constitution of the State of New York, tax of 12 1-2 cents per bushel was imposed upon the manufacture of salt, which was pledged to the creditors of the canal debt, and cannot be reduced until the payment Of that debt. By the reduction in the duty of foreign salt, which is to take place on the lst
 
 the point at which the foreign article will meet the domestic, in competition will be fur ther from the sea-board than formerly--and, consequently, the market for the latter will be more crcumscribed and the demand ne- cessarily diminished. Not that the domestic salt cannot be produced, at Salna, and deli vered on the sea-board cheaper than foreign salt can be imported--but because the inter- nal duty on its manufacture operates as pro- hibiton to an enlargement of it's natural mar ket. Tc remedy this evil, bill was introduc cd into the Senate, during the present session, to encourage the manufacture of salt, by al lowing 6ounty of cents per bushel upon all that should be transported to the Hudson river--1r, in other words, by paying back, from the brooches pocket of the State, part of the identical money collected and put into its waistcoat pocket The bill, however, failed--but the occasion offers a fair opportu- nity to clucidate the principle of disirbu- tion of the surplus funds amongst the e'seyeral States.
 NewYork, we will suppose, employs peo pie to collect a tax upon salt, and then she employs people to pay back part of tfis tax to'the persons of whom it was collected. Both these sets of agents are paid for their services, and we should like to know who is better off for 'this double operation, except it le the agents Tine State is no better oif.-tht peo- pie arc no better of---and, consequently, the expenses of collecting and disbursing are clear loss to the public. Now, where's the difference between this case and that of l dis tribption of the surplus funds? There isnonc whatever, except, that in the distribution, the receivers would not be the identical pay crs. And herein it would be unjust--tr it would be nothing more nor less than letYing contributions on one set of people in order to put money into the pockets of another ,et-- sinking the whole expenses of collecting and paving DQNncz. of kAe Consultation