Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-03-08

on tho Industry of the South, and sustaining boun-
ucs To the industry of the North With very small
share of the natural advantages enioyed by the
planting States the manufacturing States are every
where covered with monuments and evidences of u
thriving and prosperous industry, which has scarce
~ any pasalcl; while the forner equally covered
with melancholy memorials of thritless toll, i'm
lpoverishinent and suia.
Ii IL impossible that these phenomena can exist
without cause, and no known cause so naturally ac
counts Tor them as the uneaua action othe govern
ment. The most intelligent adj yocatcs of the manu.
facturcrs aicgc that the repeal of the protecting d-
ties would produce scene Of desolatIon in the
manufacturing States, as striking as that which is
now exhibited in the planting States This is dis
tnct admission of all that the have said of
the unequal operation of the protecting duties
Congress has no alchenic powers and certainly has
not yet discovered the philosophers stone. LIS tax
alton cannot, therefore, difse wealth over one pnrt
OF the Union, without taking il from another And
however disguised and complicated the process by
which the transfer is made, no degree OF pecuninry
prosperity can bc communicated to the manuiac-
turing states, by taxiag the rival productions of the
exporting States, without diminishing i'm an coual
or greater degree, the wcaltL of the latter I'm a ne
cuniary point of view, assurecly taxation can
only be blessing to those who receive the taxes
directly or Indirectly; and the allegation. that the re-
peal OF the discriminating taxes upon imports would
rum the manufacturers is admission that thew in
effect, receive those taxes. What right of the mn
nufacturers would be violated by reducing the d,,-
ties to n revenue scale? Would it be any thine
more than the assumed right of taxing their fellow
cuzens! How would the reduction of the duties
inIurc them! Could ii, by human possibility be i'm
IN any other way than by substituting some other
productions of domestic industry, for the protected
manufactures? And can it be doubted that the pro-
ducers OF the substituted articles have a natural I'M
aenable, and constitutional right To iutrod,,c, mud
use them, and that they will be as much benefc,l
by the restoration of their right TO introduce and
use them, as the manufacturers possibly be- by
their exclusion.
In conclusion, the Committee will present, in a
lew words the estimate they have formed of the re-
lave burdens and benefits imposed and conferred
ny the Protecting System upon the three geographic
cal divisions of the Union, the Northern the South
ern, and the Western States. So far rs the protect
ing duties operate merely as taxes upon CONSUMPTION
there can be no great inequality in the burdens they
impose upon the different portions of the Unon and
whatever inequality there may be, as it is founded
upon larger consumption, it may be fairly pres,lm-
ell TO he accompanied by corresponding ability to
consume. But regarding the protecting duties ms
overwhelmingly and partial taxes-upon pro-
ducton, there is nothing but inequality in their one
ration. AS the Committee have already stated The
projected manufactures do not bear any part of the
burden imposed upon the community Inv the en-
anccd price of their own productions. On the con
trary, as most of them sell those productions TO
much larger amount than will equal the amount
which they consume of all productions foreign and
domestic enhanced in their price by import duties
o.
ducton, are much greater than the taxes they nav
on their consumption. The Committee will now
so one step further. 1t will not be denied that tl,e
manufacturing States produce larger amount of
protected manufactures than will equal the amount
consumed by their entire population, of protected
rival foreign manufactures. Viewing the mauf;,c
turing States, therefore, u consolidated commune
ty the aggregate amount of the burdens imposed I'M
on mem by the whole Protecting SYSTEM is not
equal TO the amount of the bountics conferred
upon them by that system; fact which fully cx
pains, what to many seems TO be unaccountable
the unuring perseverance and increasing unanimi-
~ with which the Protecting System, in all its
branches, Is maintained by those States Regarding
the Protecting SYSTEM therefore, as il opcrates bo,
upon production and consumption it imposes no
burden mt all upon the manufacturing States con-
sidered as one entire community.
The operation of this system upon the Southern
or planting States, almost precisely the reverse
of what it is upon the Northern or manuf;acurinp
States. The former certainly consume as larqely
OF articles affected by the Protecting duties ms any of
the other States and consequently, bear their due
proportion of the burdens imposed by those duties
on the consumption of the country. But the whole
oil the burden which these duties impose upon pro-
ducton, falls almost exclusively upon the planning
States through their productions for the same rensou
and TO at least the extent that they operate MS
bounties to the rival productions of tie manufacture
ing States 1t is scarcely possible supposition
that discriminating taxes levied upon the productions
oil the planting STATES can diminish the exchan yea-
bic value of those productions, less than they i'll
crease the cXcIangeable value of the rival produc-
tons of the manufacturing States. The former re-
suit is both the and the measure of the latter
The lowest estimate that can be reasonably made of
the diminution produced in the exchangeable value
oil the southern staples of cxportation is 30 per
cent, or one half Of the protecting duty imposed
upon their conversion into manufactures by the To-
reign exchange. 1t is believed to be, in point of
fact, much greater But even according to this esti-
mate, the specific and exclusive burden impos-
ed upon the exports of the planting STATES
would be seven millions of dollars, assuming that
their exports amount TO thirty-five millions and
that imposed upon cotton and rice alone, would be
SIX fslllons But the value of the cotton tobac-
co and rice, consumed in the United States is as
much diminished as that which is exported, am adj
ditional burden of upwards of million of dollars
is i'll this way, imposed upon these productions; of
which sum, nine hundred thousand dollars as has
been heretofore shown, is exclusive burden upon
the cotton planters for the exclusive benefit of the
protected manufacturers. 1t thus appears that the
people of the planting States sustain an annual I'M
compensated burden of ut least eight millions of dol
lars, in addition TO the burden which they bear in
common with the people of the other States as con-
sumers of imported and protected articles; and this
burden is rendered almost douby injurious to the
planting and beneficial to the manufacturing States
by the inequality of its disbursement.
The Western States while they derive scarcely
any advantage from the Protecting System, and
bear their due proportion of the taxes imposed upon
their productive industry, which deserves explana-
ton 1t has been already stated, that these States
annually sell to the planting States live stock to the
pff ,,f. I,Ilo