Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-01-17

tons so As u diyest them Of every thing oxtrinsic, and &c
exhibit them In their just bearings and magnitudes.
Such were the writer's motives, and he thinks that the
Editors labours, mulifarious and momentous as he knows
them to be, could not have been i'll bestowed in pointing
out the fallacy of his reasoning; and thus shedding light
on a science in which, according to both parties, men are
peculiarly prone TO error, and in which, above all things,
error Is most pernicous.
In justice to himself the Economist bcgs leave to notice
the more important errata in his remarks, by which he
seems to have said what, it is clear from the context, he
did not mean to say, and what he thinks a reference TO bis
manuscript will show that he did not saw. Thus:
In the LIST No. In the 1st argument against Mr..
McDufic's doctrine, for, "'there WILDE two different rates OF
proht,' read, there cannot be ftco different rates of profit.
In the 4h paragraph from the end, for continuous set, /"
read continuous act"
I'd No. In the 18Th paragraph, for sa tax which is paid
ny the consumer and home manufacturer" read, ga tax,
nc. and rs not rcceired by the home manufacturers"
81 No. In the sh paragraph, for exchange would be
against u.s., read, exchange would be IN our Jaror, or
below par"
In the last paragraph but one, for ga difficulty in obtain
ing a protecting duty orer the amount" go per cent?
read, ga difficulty, &c. erer, to that AMOUNT
In the same paragraph, for sin the attainment Of a natu-
raj obligation, minor imperfections must be regarded
read, Gin the attainment of a national, Sc. must be dis
regarded"
When the above errors are corrected, so as TO be in a-
cordancc with the reasoning, the leading propositions
maintained in the essays are as follows:
1. That a tax on imports is not equivalent to a tax on
exports.
2. That the preceding doctrine would overrate the pro-
that paid by Virginia.
3. That a duty by way of protection on articles manu-
lactureu az nome Is a tax paid by the consumer which no.
body receives, and is therefore Il national loss.
d. That it is the duty of the legislator TO take the ma
tonal advantages which are said to compensate this loss
into consideration, and decide whether they are sufficient
for that object.
b. That there is inequality among the States in an i'm
post for protecting manufactures, but that that inequality
consists chiefly, and probably altogether, in this, that the
Northern States receive back a part or the whole of what
they pay in the form of profits, whilst in the Southern
States, the loss is uncompensatcd.
D. That the States thus injured, may receive a future
compensation for a moderate tariff in the reduced price OF
manufactures, and in some national benefits other than
that OF wealth; and il the Legislature were satisfied of this,
there seemed to be no good reason against combining the
duties principally to those articles which could be manu-
featured to advantage in the country.
Will the Editors have the goodness to say, whether it
was any OF these propositions 10 which they dissented, and
II so, to which?j Or if it was some of the minor and Incl
dental points which they disapprove, will they, in like
manner, particularzc them? In the meanwhile the Econo-
mist presents them with his respects and grateful saluta-
tons. 0
January ID, 1882.
H.Ws ninst resrectfuily decline the invitation Of "The Econo-
nus. II W. had the ability 10 cope with one, who has so
long studied, and is so much at home upon tho subject on which he
writes, we have not, at this moment, the time TO go into n long pa
Per on'es we should sot wish n more respectable Champion to
engage with but. he would have every advantage over us-experience.
leisure. books, &c &c. liza substitute would offer himself VIC should
most cheertuly spread a field for them in tho columns of this pnpet
to discuss tho whole Tariff subject.