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

are subjected to high duty Yet this obvious distinction
Mr.. MeDufhe's entirely dsregards.
Ii scarcely possible that Mr. McDuie could have
fallen into the strange of supposing that
imports bears heavily the cotton planter, would
tax EXPORTS If nc had regarded the business Of pro-
uucng, exporting and importing continuous set in.
steadofa series OF distinct operations carried by the
iuntary agency OF separate unconnected classes The
merchant who exports coton Is commonly the
as he who imports foreign merchandise but though he
were the operations the less distinct He Is go
verned in each by reasonable prospect of profit and Of
unless he expects receive back and charges
including the duty and something more which expecta
tons must also be generally reazed the business would
STOP Those who buy the cotton for exportaion i'm like
manner look only to the price in the foreign country end
hev Five o mere Sere d ane on IN the price
this duty raise the price Of i'm En-
gland than mpost lower the of English goods
he will not purchase unless the planter pays the duty
takes much less for his cotton amounts to the duty
that the tax must fall upon the planter, this too
whether ne ship il himself or sell to the merchant I'm
ported goods being then free Of duty, would be cheaper
than at present, by the of the duty and thus the
class OF consumers would be exempt from they
now pay 1t was from regard TO the very different opc
ration OF these two modes Of taxation, that the States
scented to give Congress the power laying import
re bat Ssep 81 a nS a in
exports, ithas tendency to fall partly upon the buyers
and partly upon the sellcsn other words upon the pro-
ducers and consumers BY reason Of this principle (Which
has been curiousy misconceved by Mr. McDuie and his
Reviewcr present mpost tends fall in part on the
English manufacturer, by checking consumption and an
export duty would still more TO fall ON the purchasers
Of cotton in England by checking production No
was laid upon this circumstances (Which not noticed
all by the Reviewe) because the either would
be chiefly felt in this country by of limit
ed market, and because II could materially affect the
comparison between two classes Of citizens
1t Is unnecessary to notice the other arguments and illus
tratons relied upon by the Reviewer to support this new
doctrine 40 uno disco onnes! They go still further
than Mr. McDuie, in confounding things that diHe
rent and in conflicting with the undsputed princ
pies OF trade and taxation and the amusing crcum
stance Is, that when the collision is discovered which
n in
Monty This article on indirect taxation deserves to be
read as literary curiosity. AS composition, it is
well wren-nay, better than webut i'm its reasoning,
it exhibits either boldness of sophstry confusion
thought or is not clear whch) of which there
examplcs-cerainy in the very respectable perod
cal in which it appears.
But although Mr. McDulhc's principle would give
a wrong OF the injury which South Carolina suf
fers from the tariff and that would have the bear
ing Virginia as the Northern States yet all the
Southern States including own, have good
complain of the tariff With view of showing what the
ground of complaint really is well the best
atordng relief further remarks will be hazarded,
when you are again addressed by AN ECONOMIST.