Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-09-14


mine, as he will perceive once, ii he will advert the
fact, that the of $l5t5l 9IS includes the difference
an Me pound Sterling, and HfeIciSe does the sum of
$ll7295i1, the duties the protected articles. The
difference between those two sums OF course be the
amount OF duties on the unprotected articles inc,ding
tic change an The pound Sterling, and il this should be
again added proposed by Col dayton It's evident that
it would be t,cice charged Col Drayton denies having
committed mistake sonnting to $S2,365 in calculating
the difference in the pound sterling inasmuch as sin his
calculation he did not the difference TO be per
cent, butouy 20" Co. Drayon has here established
the existence OF h error and pointed out its II
there be any truth in figures any reliance TO be placed
in the calculations of sul accountants the true difference
IN the change OF the pound sterling per and not
cent. assumed by Col d. The facts and calculations
on both sides on these points before the public
whose judgment cheeIfully leave the decision
will now proceed very briefly TO notice some of the
remaining points controversy between Colonel Draw
ton aud myself
1>t"rhe duty twist, yarn and thread, was stated
to be reduced by $2 59S when the duties these art-
clcs remain under the Tariff the same as before
This Col D. admits TO he an error, which he charges 10
the new Treasury statement.
2l-"rhe duty se'oing sik has been increased
$4,000, OF which notice has been taken. This ano-
iher acknowledged in the Treasury statement. To
which Is 10 re added the increased duties on sates and
H'ScyS and on syrup from the cane ION which last ar
Gle appears that prohihory duty has been mposed)
Tor none OF which any allowance has been made.
81. yNGuWdct,VeS Of HOn-ln relation TO these ari-
ccs have shewn that under the Pyoriso i'm the 10Th
and 18th clauses of the 81 OF the new Act according
the very lowest estimate, made by respectable mer
chants OF this city the increase OF The duty will be at
cast NSUU,OOV while according to received
from Philadelphia, 1t will be upwards of $500,O00 On
this point, Col dayton merely says that he docs not
know INC basis on which il il assumed that the statement
ol me keESterol the Treasury is erroneous, Sc Now
IL Coz dayton will turn 10 the Treasury statement of Nav
last he will that in the Treasury estimate of the d
heS on hdr0dre they set down % and 30 per
without any allowance for the increased duties under the
provsos, which as have shewn on former OCCASION
VIII make IAN acreage coarse articles of
ot itSS man JTom l25 to 100 per cent and carry up the
uy on some articles TO upwards OF 300 per cent The
treasury is certainly therefore in here" The
amount can If course only be estimated
4th C0H0n Bdgging.-I have shewn that propiso was
inserted in the Bill for the express purpose of bring
ing the article called Hessians paying duty of %
per cent (ahd which is now used in packing much the
largest portion OF the cotton OF the Southern Sates un
der The new duty OF 2 cents which OH this article will
50 greatly exceed The old duty, TO amount on the
Woc 10 an increase OF the tax the planters of
tzUS' 'Oohei Drayton replies that this will depend OH
the instructions o! the Treasury. Ii may be So hut as
matters now STAND, we must apply the law TO the existing
rule and thus there is increase of the tax upon the
southern planters ON cotton bagging article on which
hey were promised great reduction. The Sea Island
planters may not he elected by this, but the "Upand
PLANTERS, who DO not use yard of what COL d. calls
lne oaGsE oil good quality will have TO pay the diff
ference The rich may be benefited, but il will be by
'E'ng larger sum ont OF the pockets of the poor.
ON. NeSIo cioth.-On this point have not assumed
mat mons could be brought in under the per cent duty
" hat SAM was "that taxing the proportions imported in
70 inns pace Isi year. when the prices unusually
oW near enc h'd OF the lmpOrtaons would under
NE % per cent. dny aud even this basis deduction
you'd nave 10 be made from the estimated reduction on
JUS I'NNlc, OF then Xe1 n
submitted by respectable importer of this city, showing
mat according TO present prices in England none could
DC imported the price OF which, with the charges added
would not exccedS2 l2 cents, TO which the 35 cents is
cduced by the new valuation of the pound sterling" On
ms basis the increase OF the duty wooen cloths would
DC $9'oO2 instead of reduction of 1929 3O5. The on
point IN the case IL whether the article can be import
sd under the new duty, and TO what extent? have
gwen the evidence in my possession aud the evidence ON
ne oIher SIDE Is before the public have nothing add
keep TO invite Col Dayons attention the history OF
ms Negro Cloth duty, recorded in late number of
he Banner Of the Constitution
D. DFdio6dchS-On this point, alleged that Col Draw
on IN adopting the Treasury Statement of So O7S as
Inc aggregate reduction under the new Bill had taken
me he revenue as the basis of his calculations while in
assuming Sl,S67,O56 as The OF reduction OH the
protected articles he had made his calculations on the
gross revenue without deductng drawbacks when
clear tiai me same data ought TO be assumed in both
cases Col D. while he admits MeIdct here charged,
at reduction t06S made by him for drawbacks i'm
ne aggregate and does seem 10 him that tev have
my conue Nion with comparative statement intended n
'w nc reduction Oh the amount of duty given sum
hn The very point of comparison in this case was the
'cdfipe amount of reduction, under the new Bill on the
projected and unprotected articles Col Drayton states
e case thus; Reduction on the protected articles ST.
$685. 56-in the aggregate So, 1871 007-from which il
would Seem TO follow a matter of course, that the
educiion on the unprotected articles must be S33I7
J1l, being tho difference between these two sums
bh turns out imt the amount of reduction on the pro-
eced articles has been calculated the gross revenue
tnd The aggregate reduction the nett. TAKING fine
nett revenue the basis of both calculations the State
nen would stand thu Reduction on the protected art
cS 'CcoTuhS 10 Col Dfayton csiimate) 81 666 056
ne unprotected 5000 9jl-aggregate SO IS7 O07 -
mere Is nothing TO be added the mere statement of be
case; speaks Tor itself This calculation however s
founded on the data assumed by Col. Drayon But from
' $i'Ooooo6 there Is still TO be deducted $3.50 $40 Col
DS own estimate Of the cash dutics-leavnp ONLY s9O6
OI as The amount OF reduction the articles
recording to his own shewiug--whch, according TO
ny calculation, would still be subject all the deduc-
IONS before mentioned. | will only add that Colonel
Dmyton has thrown into his list of UNPROTECTED arii-
Gle. several which properly belong the protected class
such as spirits, and number of other articles the duties
On which exceed 81 900 900.
7. ran Of PriceS.-Co Drayon does not DENY that te
specific duties under the Bill may exceed their rate
nj uaiore under the Act of 1928 But he saws he does
not know whether any fall has taken place in the price of
rolled Iron, and that at all events " its will be dmi-
nshcd in ratio proportionae the reduction of the du
les Now, Col Dmyton will turn to the Blacksmith
petition, he will that rolled Iron was selnp i'm Fuo
land at that time az price which made the duty of $50
ION less than 100 per cent? whereas can now be had AT
~ ton making The new duty upwards of 1870 per cent
ne same ng Is true in greater less degree ofaH ar
ScieS and to bring the specific duties under the new law
down to what they when the Act of 1928 was pass.
am inclined to think general reduction of from i5 10 20
per cent would have been necessary. My objections to
The new Bill on This score went TO ibis extent and no fur
Their that while prices have every where fallen there has
not been p'oportonlte reduction Of the specific duties
thereby IN elect Increasing their al Uqi0ren beyond
what they were in 1928.
Ono word TO the cash duties Tho aivar,a,e 10 ,o
commerce OF the country othe credit system can only be
esuHaled by merchants. Assuming their estimates |
nave supposed 1t fully equal TO 10 per cent on the dufu
some nave estimated II las assumed by MIR. McDunie IN
ms Pecch) as equal 10 10 per the capital employ.
cd nave statement now in posse sson ervcd from
merchant OF the highest character, she wing this result
dld not, however understand some Others have done
NAY '"c csna's in the HddresS were based this view
oi the subject My own speech in the Senate will show
ha projected on different basis. To prove that each
duties have always been considered as "burlen creator
nan lhe mere interest Of the money will refer Col