Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-06-29
SPEECH OF
~ MN M'DUFFIE, OF S. CAROLINA.

imporis
DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE, or REPRESENTATIVES,, MA,
i %, 1882
\ coNrisUED.1
81 H""' Wotch close the process by which these
exchanges are actually effected, md see if you
Gu" discover how the planters get reIiey ed from,
.er n"rthen''as producers. The frs, step in this
INo'"i"ca'eu process, IS sale to the exDOrtinu
| "ercnants f'r money. Here keep a close look
OUT Tor we have reached the point upon which
'e who!e controversy tIrns. Examine and see
w"e,her the planters Obtain any more money
."r the'r staples than they could have rculized
/ 'or 'heh' 10y sending them to Europe On their
own account, aud making the exchange them
serves. IL they do not, il is conclusive proof
t"at they evade no portion of the burtIIea by
selling Tor cash, IN place of selling in Europe
'or manufactures. IL they do, then the express
porting merchant has been guilty of the singi
! lar Ioliy OF giving the planters just so mucl,
nv',. Tor their staples than they are worth; un
Iimputation to ,Y..ich no one will suppose him to
| he liable.
| The trutk is that The exporting merchant can J.
not ana will not give the planters farlhiDg
| more Tor their staples than tho planters could
nave themselves made out of them. by going
| through the whole process of the exchange
| In word, the value of cotton is the value of
mo foreign manufactures it will purchase
/ 1hese are, strictly speaking, equivalent Values,
and convertible terms. In whatever degree,
therefore, an import duty upon these manufuc-
|
Tue staples OF exportntion with which they are
| in point of fact, purchased
Inc controversy, then, disguise IL as YOU NAV
resolves itself into a competition between the
| southern planters and the northern nianufactur.
ers, Tor supplying the market ofthe United States
with certain descriptions of manu!acluies-
Aud take il to be the very clearest of all pro-
positions in-political economy, that the protect
| Tug duties must in the very nature of things
infiict an injury upon the southern planters al
least equal To The benefit they confer upon The
northern manufactures. In truth the injury
inflicted IN one case, must be greater than the
beneht conferred in the other. The yery ground
upon which the protecting duties are demanded
Is, that the cotton planters can import and sell
manufactures cheaper Than the domestic man
utacturers can mako and sell them. So far,
therefore, as these duties operate rs protection
hey take away the employment of more pro-
ductlve class, and give it to thai is less pro
uuctive. IL, with protection of forty per cent.
inc manufacturers can only make their ordinary
prohts, and II the planters eau maintain the
competition even under this enormous discrimi-
mating duty,r is evident that with mere reven-
ue duties of 1874 per cent, the planters could
sell at much lower prices than the manufac-
| turers, aud al the same time realize much high
er prices.
IL follows. that the benefit which protecting
restrictions can confer upon the domestic man
ufactures may he much loss, but cannot possibly
he greater than the injury Inflicted oil their RI, ais
| the southern planters. When | advanced these
opinions on this floor more than Two years ago,
they were supposed Ivy many TO involve novel
ami visionary theory, which had not been put
forth by Il book of authority. But il is n curl
Gus fact, teuding to illustrate the cuternuorane-
aus development of these views in this country
aud IN Eng land, that almost at the very time
they were first publicly advanced hsre, they
were published there by two authors, who NAV
he Justly regarded az ornaments TO this branch
ot political phnosephy. Professor Senior, of
Oxford, in OF lectures on political e.
economy, published in 1880, distinctly LAYS il
down, shat II is Impossible TO encourage the in
dustry of one class Of producers, by means of
commercial restrictions, without discouraging
TO an equal degree, the exerlions Of Others
| That every prohibition of importation is pro-
hibition OF expectation. That every restriction
on the importation of French silks 10 "a resiric
| ton on the expectation of those articles with
which these silks would have been purchased.
That if it benefit the English silk manuiactur-
err II Injuries, TO at least an equal amount, in the
"hoie' though me Injury Is less perceplibIe, be-
cause more widely dfused, the cotton spinner
the cutler, or The clotbier. Again: "a restrlc-
ton or prohibition of the importation of auy
Ioreign commodity, occasions loss TO those Der-
sons soho VouM haze produced The Enghsh
co"modity p,M a0htch the excluded Joreig,. COM
also,a loss TO those who a,o forced TO purchase
the dearer or inferior English cotnmodty"
VIII now quote a lew passages from an arli-
Gle III The Westminster Review Tor 1880; ali ar
ticle in which The doctrines I am maintaiuiuu
are ILLUSTRATED by n combination of wit and phi
iosJpliy very rarely United in the discussions oil
| so nbStruse a subject.
"Glovcs may be had, il shall be supposed from
French maker, for the value Of Two shi!Iinss
| pair: An EDelsbman stands up, and saws
that he can make gloves Of the same kind for
| three sbIlhDgs; and, therefore, for the encour-
agement OF English commerce, i. is expedieut
| 10 pass Jaw 10 prohibit the introdpc of
French gloves at two shiihngs, in order tina,
those who chose TO wear gloves may be obliged
10 take them from the EDslishman ar three .
f"When you buy pair OF French gloves IL is
clear they are paid for in something" 'rhsy
are pad Tor, TO the FrenchmaD, it may be- in-
| Sheffield goods. But if tire glove maker pro-
cures law that gloves shalI not he brought
hom France, 1t is plain that Sheffield goods
must stop The glove maker may gain employ
ment aud trade, to the amount of two sl,iliInss
but IL Is t9uaty plain that tie Sheffield man must
lose e." The whole amounts To IA plan for rob
bIDS Sheffield man or Birmingham, who
can make what people will voluntarily buy, fos
tie benefit of the glover who cannot for clip
| ping the commerce of some individual who
has ingenuity and skill enough TO command
a market, to add TO INN who Is WITHOUT"
Here, IT will be seen, that the author distinct
! ly assumes, that the principal injury produced
Ivy restrictive law, is TO those domestic pro-
/ ducers "who would have produced the EnsIlsL
commodity with which the foreign commodity
| would have been purchased" while the injury
To TIC consumer Is comparatively small.
| l will now read a short exlract, which adrni
raby rldlcules that bewIderug confusion OF
ideas which induces many 10 believe that there
is sOme magic III a foreign exchange, which re-
lIeves the domestic producer from the burIhen ol
protective duty or RESTRICTION.
"If q saving IS to be made from the introduc.