Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-08-17


Thus, the reader will perceive, that the table is
now authenticated by n officer of the Treasury
Department-and this, of course, removes the OBJ
lection which has been made it by the Nullifca-
ton prints at Charleston, that no confidence was to
be placed in its statements; that it Unofficial,
private, &c.-We presume now that shall have
in few Gays the promised letter of Col. Drayton,
because it is said in of the Union prints that he
was waiting for this document to receive tire authen-
tic stamp of the Department, and also for a revision
of of its in relation to cotton goods-'The
reader will perceive that III both these respects the
present table differs from the last.
The result of this corrected expose is that instead
OF the nett import, being cut down to eleven mil
o0s, on the basis of the importaons of 1880, it is
reduced TO little more than II millions-which add
ed to the proceeds ofthe public lands say 5000 GOO
and the dividends of the bank stock 400 600 would
give as the nett amount of the of the u. S.
1851 5,,7.Tbe nett revenue of the United States
would thus have been reduced tsnce the tariff of
1927 by the operation of the acts of 1880 and of
80, from 9 to 10 millions.
We seize this occasion 10 say that friend has
submitted TO us certain scraps of a notification pa
per published i'm this city, protesting TO correct some
of our previous mstaBcs-or, if the editor is better
pleased with the phrase, our misrepresentation.
From quarter, which for the last two years has
been employed in casting np1n us nothing bun the
lowest abuse we can scarcely expect, in these times,
any thing like liberalty Justice We despse its
attacks-we never consult its columns; and the most
we know OF 1t is an extract that sea occasionally
transplancd into the genial soil of the Il. = Tele
graph, or the Notification Prints OFFS Carolina. The
Editor is certainly "no prophet in his own country"
and although he was kind enough lately ipslnu-
ate something about the waning state of our ledger
yet we can state for his consolation, that our sub
scription is daily increasing and that we have in al
probability gained many subscribers since January
last, as he can now claim in the whole State of Viz
glnla. Let this, however, pass notwithstanding
It's abuse, we are free TO confess orr errors-and will
at all times cheerully do so.
!. In quoting from Mr. McDuflie's speech CIR com
posor put S8,000G00, instead of 81 00O0O0, ms his
estimated amount OF the burhen produced hNsubsti-
utng cash for credit duties on woollens The whole
passage was printed in the Enquirer; and any man
with grain of sense must have seen tlnt it was an
erraum for he had the means of correcting before
INN. In TACT we afterwards stuffed it ourselves at
Sl,OOOOOO AS TO the correction that we at the
same time poinled out in Mr. McD's important err
ror, il still remains uncOntradctcd
q The Critic has falsely quoted us in another
passage, and thus attempts TO palm upon us an err
ror in arithmetic. He quotes us as saving
"From the gross Sl3 96S 55l (he gross amount
OF the contemplated Ta6D is 10 be deducted, or draw
hacks, &c) 1851 479 1t is by making these requisite
dedueions that the Globe 10 the of IL mil
hons as the nett revenue from the farif!'
Fine reGsoningi fine arithmetic From 1913, 06s, 55I
deduct S3SSl 49, and there remains but traction
SlOO0OOOOthe amount allowed on hands to be gecessa-
Ty for the constitutional wants Of Government"
Now, what did we say !? From the gross amount
OF Sl396S,55l (the gross result Of the contemplated
Iarlii IS to be deducted the "dTa wbaCk on exports
bounties on refined sugar and domestic spirits boun
ties and allowances fisheries, and expences of
collection of revenue" &c. Which in the lfoy table
are set do,Cn at 1881 40" &c. He is pleased to
omit the words IN Halics, and thus makes the error
winch he ascrbes to ourselves. If the critic has not
the wit TO discover that the draoJack, expenses, &c
are not less on 1865, 55l than on SOL 7I177O it is
not our fault.
- Ills blunder about the duty on the protected
art'ctes IS too clumsy to impose upon any one. We
have said expressly that the Tariff of 80 raises the
money by disPrOportioHGie duiJ on the protected
articles-that is, of course by taxing those articles
too much--(and giving, consequently, too great
premium TO the domestic manufactured Bun we
sad also, that of the III millions Of duties cut off 3
millions at least might be estimated by the late tables
ms being on the protected articles. How then is il
possible for any man, except this critic himself to
suspect us of an attempt to pass off the assumed re-
duction of the whole amount Of the duties, OH the
protected articles 2"
a. "dgGia-Mr Med. estimates the value Of wooIlens
imported al SlOOO0,0O0 This is according 10 the est
mates made by the Secretary Of the Treasury far 1892
Inc Editor takes up the estimates for $780, aud finds the
amount 70 De S5l02,429 and upon this Ohcsc) data
vtcts Mr.. McDule Of something worse Than gross eno
ranceWil his readers ever know that there were ,so
estimates furnished by The Secretary OF the Treasury? and
mat INC Editor uses that for 1880, and Mr. McDuiie that
for 1892"
WheTe is this estimate Of the Secretary Of the
treasury In the estimate, which ACCOMPANIED
his bill m May last, he certainly takes tho inponn-
ion OF 1880 rs the basis of his calculaton-aud in
he late table the very same basis is adopted But
WI mcD. himself does not refer to n Treasury docu-
neni lie only says, assuming the annual nrnoupt
'f The importation Of toooiens to be $4,000 600. &c
,h corrected Table u,t published amour, ,hets