Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-12-28


world has been in error, Mr.. McDufe is mistaken.
This doctrine, too materially concerns Virginia, but i'm
way somewhat different from that commonly supposed
Her population is about one-enth Of that Of the Union
yet her exports foreign countries have
less than this proportion She them according to this
theory does not bear her full quota Of the to the
General Government And, although South Carolina has
not half the population OF Virginia her exports aro
exchanged for foreign merchandise are sometimes neasy
twice great those of Virginia so that according to-
the theory she contributes four times as much as
we do to the national treasury in proportion to her
bers.
But will not be difficult defend her from the impu-
tntion oil not bearing her share of the public burthcn
The duties imports in fact, paid by those who
sumo them, matter by what commodities they have
been purchased and not all NY the producers hose
commodities, except far they consumers also.
nswcrable:
l. If the duty did completely enter into the price Of
he GOODS an, thus fall upon the the profit Of
importing different species of merchandise would vary
WIN the Duty which is contrary to experience We
KNOW that some Kinds oil goods pay high duty,
moderate one, and duty all; yet we cannot
suppose that the importers OF description make more
profit than those OF another, without the
tabished maxim, that there will be different rates Of
profit in the same branch of trade at the Time
2 An exporter of cotton who chooses do may se
his cotton in England France and draw bills the
proceeds-by which operation he commonly receive
here, in gold silver the full price obtained in Europe
and often something 1t has been objected to tits.
argument that every shipper do this but the
gumen remains in full force if can do it-and ID
those who actually do it, do not average, obtain
more profitable return than those who import merchandise
subject TO duty, know that some actually take this
8. high Tariff has always been considered 10 encour-
age smuggling; but if the duty does No
price oil the goods imported by the regular trader
be eventually paid by consumer il is not easy to sec
now smuggling is more profitable by high duties than low
ones.
L. If the duties paid on the imports which cotton has
purchased fall on the planter who produced that cotton
then the duties goods purchased by Virginia. fall almost
solely on her tobacco planters since she exports very
little to foreign countries, except obacco-an imputaion
to which growers Of wheat and would be as I'm
willing submit the tobacco planters would bear the
reality.
g. If the duty imported goods fall upon the producer
OF the exports which have purchased such goods then
cannot exceed the whole value of the goods. Mr..
McDuie maintains that impost of forty per cent is
the same thing TO the cotton planter export duty Of
forty per cent on his cotton tax of forty bales in the
hundred In this view, the may reach one hundred
per centthat is may absorb the whole of the cotton
one hundred per cent and Tariff furnishes some
examples of such heavy taxation. One half salt con-
sumed in the United States costs less than ten
he; yet it pays duty of fifteen cents, and formerly
paid duty OF twenty cents-just double its To
make an export duty equivalent to such mpost this
Is TO suppose the Government 10 take two hundred bales
of cotton out of every hundred bales exported
Again: We know that our tobacco pays duty tax in
England of twelve fifteen times its ordinary cost-that
is about $66 every hundred weight. Now, although
we knew that this exorbitant tax injurious us, by
checking the consumption of our staple we believed that
it actually paid by the British consumer; yet we are
told by the doctors of this school, plant
for every hundred weight of tobacco, for which, per-
of SOC
6. The only in which duty on exports and I'M
ports is when he imported merchandise tho
full amount of his EXPORTS and if the planters of South
Carolina made this of all the cotton they export there
certainly would be difference, but in name, whether
they paid the duty in way the. other But
this we know not to be the fact considerable proper
ton of the cotton and which they export goes not to
pay for merchandise subject Duty the products
of the industry of other States Thus, all the oil fish,
much oil the whiskey pork horses and mules part of the
Hour and manufactured tobacco carriages hats Shoes
&c. which it consumes it receives from other States
and by OF the nsauby OF the lower part Of the
State in the Summer her wealthy inhabitants
is her principal rice and cotton planters pass that
in the other States and of course spend way
ton of their incomes.
On such part of the proceeds of their agricultural in
dustry, as Is exchanged for the other
they pay duty, and only the remaining portion
which IS vested in English and French goods in wines
teas coffee spices sc. which they contribute to th
Puolc revenue H. enjoying the advantages OF a more
genial climate, their lands productive than ours
they may according TO numbers, be somewhat greater,
consumers than we, and thus proportionably contribute
something more TO the but this difference was
what was contemplated when the constitution authorized
indirect taxation and it is consonant to natural
justice that every should contribute the expense OF
government, according to his ability and TO the the
protection he receives.
For the preceding reasons il seems sufficiently mani;
eS' mat the duties ON imports into the price of the
merchandise, and are finally paid by the consumer IT,
however, the duty laid the export of cotton il
would then TALL solely the producer of the cotton No
shipper OF produce, at this time whether merchant or
PLANTER orders merchandise i'm unless he has fair
prospect OF receiving back the duty which he knows no
must advance, when he makes sale of the merchanizc
IL is IN fact much part of the cost of GETTING s,,cb
merchandise here, its freight and insurance In
Ike manner, If the duty laid The export this duty
must be deducted from the price in England and whether
the cotton be shipped by the planter merchant the loss
must a upon the planter certainly the trans
portaton takes so much from the value of his cotton
Now, lctus see in what these principles of trade
winch are so familiar to every merchant been de-
MED by Mr.. McDuiIie. The last Southern Review thus
t1umphanly states one of his arguments
6 But the put by Mr. McDuffe as il seems 10 MS
unanswerably establishes the equvaency of import and
export duties We never have even a plausible at
tempt TO answer is briefly stated we give il entire:
Lett suppose to make the too plain for evasion
equlvGcaon that two merchants IyerpooI
each of them with cargo OF thousand bales OF upland
cotton, worth thirty thousand dollars with view to cx-
change them for cotton manufactures. We will also sup
posc that one of these merchants is compelled TO pay
export duty oil 33 3 per cent? and that the other, under
the impression that il would be much less buhc
permitted as special favour, to export his free Of
duty on condition that he pays like duty when he imports
the return cargo Now, let follow these merchants
through their respective adventures, and how the mat
ter viii cnc One of them is compelled 10 pay thou
sand dollars at the great national toll gate, he goes
TO raise which sum- he sells third of his before
ne leaves the United States When they reach Liverpool,
ana sell their respective cargoes of them finds that he
has only $4,000 in his pocket, whcrewih to purchase
goods while the other exuts in the possession of $50 900
Each OF them proceeds 10 invest his money in cotton ma
nuidctuTes and they then embark in the same vessel for
the United States When they reach the custom house
the one who recently exulted in his cargo worth $50 900
Is informed with great civty, that he will be permitted
TO land his goods he will pay the trng OF 600
Tor so valuable privilege lie of course complies with a
proposition reasonable ON comparpp stock