Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-03-05

of eighteen millions; 1t being generally calculut-
ed that, in such colt on fabrics AS We are IN the
habit of making, the manufacture constitutes
three iOurths ofthc value ofth. article IT, there
fore, these twcnty-four millions worth OF cotton
iabilcs were not made IN the Umtcd States,
but were manufactured in Great Britain, in
order TO obtain them, we SHOULD have to
add to the already enormous dispropoItion
between the amount If our imports aud
exports, in the trade with Great B,itain,
the further sum Of twenty four millions, or,
deducting the price of the raw material, eight
teen millions! And wall 2entiemen tell me
now 1t would be posi- lc for this country To sus
tam such u ruinous trade. From all that por-
tion ofthc United States lying north and cast
Of James river, and west of the mountains
Great Britain receives compare lively nothing
How would it be possible for the inhabitants Of
that largest portion of our territory, to sup
ply themselves with cotton fabrics, if they were
brought from England exclusively? They could
not do 1t. But for the existence of the Amer
lean manufacture, they wonld be compelled
greatly to cur."u their supplies, If not absolute
Iy TO suffer IN their comforts. By it's existence
at home, the circle Of those exchanges is created
which reciprocally diiuses among all, who
embraced within II, the productions oftheir re-
spec'ive industry. The cotton grower sells tho
raw material to the manufaciurcr; he buys the
iron, the bread the meal, the coal, and the count
less number of objects of his consumption, from
his fellow citizens and they, in turn, purchase his
fabrics. Putting it upon the ground merely of
supplying those with necessary articles, who could
not otherwise obtain them ought there to be- from
any quarter, an objection to the only system by
which that object be accomplished? But
can there be any doubt, with those who will
reflect, that the actual amount of cotton consumed
Is increased by the home manufacture? The main
argument of gentlemen is founded upon the idea of
mutual ability resulting from mutual exchanges
They would furnish ability to foreign nations, by
purchasing from them, and to own people, by
oh a.
turo were discontinued, ard that of England were
to take its place, how would she sell the addition
nj quantity oftwcnty-four millions of cotton goods
which we now make? To us? That has been
shown to be mpracticablc. To other foreign ma.
tons? She has already pushed her supplies to
them to the utmost extent. The ultimate conse
quence would, then, be to diminish the total con.
sumption OF cotton, to say nothing now of the re-
auctlon Oh price s1at would take place by throw
lngInto the ports of Great Britain the two hun
dres thousand bales which, no longer being manu-
featured in the United States, would 90 thther
.. That the import duty is equivalent to
port duty, and falls on the producer of cotton
Here General HAYNE explained, and said that
he never contended that an import duty was eOui-
Vaent to an export duty, under all circumstances
he explained in his speech his ideas of the precise
operation OF the existing system. To which Mr..
CLAY replied that he had seen the argument so sta.
ted IN some of the ingenious essays from the South
Carolina press, and would therefore answer it,
lhe trainers of our constitution, by granting
the power TO Congress TO lay imports, and prohi-
ting That OF laying export duty, manifested
that they did not regard them as equivalent Nor
does the common sense OF mankind. An export
duty fastens upon, and incorporates itself with,
the article on which it is laid. The article
escape from tit pursueS and follows it wherever
the article goes; and if, in the foreign MARKET the
supply is above or just equal TO the demand the
amount OF tho export duty will be Il clear deduct
ION to the exporter from the price of the article.
But an import duty foreign article leaves the
~ ic art rlp frpn LET IN, i.,t,n
specie; 2dly goods which free from the protect.
ing duty; or, 3dy, such goods as, being chargcabc
with the protecting duty, he sell at home and
throw the duty on the consumer.
But it is confidently argued that the import duty
tails upon the grower of cotton; and the case has
been put in debate, and again and again,
saion, OF the South Carolina planter who oxpor $
lOO bales OF cotton to Liverpool, exchanges them
for lOO bales OF merchandise; and, when he brings
them home, being compelled to leave, at the Gus
tom house, forty bales in the form Of duties. The
argument is founded on the assumption that duty
ottorty per cent amounts to subtraction of forty
from the 100 bales of merchandise. The first oh
lection to it is, that it supposcs a of barter
which never If it be replied that it, never
thecss,S occurs in the operations of commerce, the
answer would be that, since the export of Carolina
cotton is chiefly made by New York or foreign mer
chants, the loss stated iii really accrued, would
fall upon them and not upon the planter. But to
test the correctness of the hypothetical case let
suppose that the duty, instead of forty per cent
some cases. Then, the planter would not only lose
the whole hundred bales of merchandise which he
had gotten for his hundred bales of cotton, but he
would have to purchase, with other means
an additional fifty bales in order to en-
able HIM to pay the duties accruing or
the proceeds of the cotton. Another an
swer IS, that, if the producer of cotton in Amer
lea, exchanged againts English fabrics, pays the
duty, tho producer of those fabrics also paws it
and then it is twice paid. Such must be tn,
consequence, unless the principle is true on on,
side OF the Atlantic, and false the other The
true answer is, that the exporter of article, il
ne invests Its proceeds in Il foreign market, .akc
care to make the Investment in such merchandise
as, when brought home he soil with fair pro
bt; ana consequently, the consumer would nav the
original cost and charges and profit.
5. The next objection to the American Systen
is, That IL subjects South Carolina to the paymen
OF an undue proportion of the public revenue Thu
basis OF this objection is the assumption shown 70
have been erroneous, that the producer of the OK
ports from tins country pays the duty its import
instead OF the consumer of those imports Tn,
amount which South Carolina really contributes T.
the pubic revenue, no more than that of any othe
State can be precisely asccrtancd. 1t depend
upon her consumption of articles paying duties, am
we may make an approximation sufficient for al
practical purposes. The cotton planters of the val
ley of the Mississippi with which am acquainted
generally expend about one third of their income il
the support ofthcir families ard plantations. o.
this subject, hold in my hands statement from
friend OF nine, OF great accuracy, and IL member O
the Senate. According to this statement in Gro
OF ten thousand dollars, the expenses NAV nuotu;si
between two thousand eight hundred dollars anC
three thousand two hundred dollars Ofthis sum
about one fourth, from seven to eight hundred do
lars, may be laid in articles paving the protcc
ing duty, the residue is disbursed for nrov;sion,
mules, horses, oxen, wages ofovcrssor &c Eel
mating tho exports of South Carolina at EIGHT mil