Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-06-22


unjust imputaton upon an indivdual-lct alone State.
HIS statement ia reply TO the gentleman from Louisiana,
mir Bulloid was founded upon facts generally received.
lie was happy being set right by The veroTlole gCnue
man.
Mr. Jarvis said, the request Of several friends around
MIN who were anxious that ue question mig be takeu
he would orcgo his intention Of addressing the Committee
al that time.
The amendments offered some days ago By Nr j. Da-
Wis, having been wi!hlrawu--
@r. Jewen mO~cd amendment, providing that the
ud rGorcm duty wool should be calculated upon it's
value in the principal markets in the United States
Mr. Cambreicng Sui gcSed that great practical difficult
ncs would auendihs c1cuH'on One rate ofduty would
be charged at Boston, anO;hcrat New York and so through
the several ports in the United States
MI Stewart said, under the existing protection the duty
on wool estimated At 50 per cent-yet from $50 600
pounds In 1880 the importation hal increased 1881 COO
ooO pounds Thsinmcnse increase must have been
torauds So large an importation could he justified by
fair business.
Mr.. Bouljn would explain the reasons of the increase
without resorng to fraudulent invoices. The high duty
own growth-whch was all monopolized by SPECTATORS
VINO raised the price high, TO juy the enormous i'm
portaUon alluded to.
The question was taken Mr. Jcwett's amendment
which was rejected Ayes as, Noes SIS.
MI Nik's offered an amendment increasing The al ga
forem duty on wool 10 80 per cent.-which WAS lost
Mr. Horn proposed an amendment, but withdrew il at
the request Of "
Mr.. Hoffman, who introa;cd gentlemen to permit the
and The amendment offered by Mr. Stewart 1.-THE amend
mcnt was rejected the bin would 10 fully open to bc
amended in any, all its detalbu any amendment, now
opeu would be fastened upon the bill and could not af
forwards be got rid Of
Mr. j. Davis offered modification of his former amend
neht-proFiiinS among other things, that on all manulc-
lures of wool, worth above 80 cents pcr square ward IN
per cent duty dd rdi0re be charged TO be calculated ON
Sne Wholesale value in the principal markets Of the u
Staes-proviG' Is also, that less an 30 cents M ,,
duty be assessed upon Gapnels - '"'"
mr. Camereieng said, on the principle proposed the cal
cuauon oil fair duties upon the value of Goods in lii
country would be impraccable Ntcrcb - h u
similar goods in the same markets abroad bv brnciug
ln'o ueren ports, would pay duty very iierent
n =. 4
respective ports.
Mr.. J. Davis understood that protection was intended
Experience had Shewn that The importing business having
gone milo The hands o' the foreign manufacturer, there
was no longer any security in foreign valuation The
immense importation last year fully corroboraod ills po-
sion.
Mr.. Adams hoped the principle Of valuation in thi,
country would prevail Had tho Committee at the time
the bill was framed, had the information they pos
seSSed would have been introduced into the bill lis
introduction would make the manufacturers satisfied
with the bill, as he had been assured
Mr.. Cambreleng said the gentleman from Mlssachu-
sets Mr. AdanS) had hit upon singular expedicnt for
the reduction of the rate OF duty-wich pressed so Sc
Verely upon many parts OF the country. Upon articles
which now pay 90 per cent their value abroad, is
proposed that they pay merely 80 per cent on their
value here, deduciing tie dnybut 30 per cent upon
cost and duty together with all charges and the profits
added! The proposition nionstrous TO be debated
In an assembly OF reasonable
Mr. Hoffman would again remind the Committee that il
this amendment be rejected here, aerv ards re-
newcd-buii twas fastened upon the bill there il wond
remain As to the extent OF the duty imposed hv it, the
1 AT Oper
cent upon the cost in the orc market seemed be
neither less than absolute prohibition MANY
other articles from which revenue has been raised are
among what are called unprotected articles, from which
all duties are to be taken OIL On these a duty apparently
prohibory, is TO be proposed What must be the neyi
table result No revenue whatever. The ,.roans o.,a
suifengs and distress of manufacturers familiar
sound to him. All their sorrow in contemplation of the
bill of 1928, passed oil in smiles when that bin was fixed
upon the country lie begged gentlemen to be alarm
ed by any fears otdesootom to affect
ed by any sympathy OF their affected terror This
haIh nn on gfpI ton alf I.t,
much influence upon him. This important subject
to the whole country. Ii duty to exercise our
own judgment on it, and rely implicitly on the state
mens OF interested individuals Whether his duty was
absolutely prohi5ilory hc would say. 1t locked very
much like 1t, To say the least.
Mr. Williams thought question of so much importance
required more consideration than could be given at so
late an hour. He moved the Committee rse-wlch was
lost ayes go, 81.
Mr. Root thought the amendment directly raised the
question whether II our true policy exclude all tie
foreign fabrics included in It's descriptive The gen
reman from Massachusetts,, Mr.. Davis who proposed it,
will not deny in the face Of The House that the duty pro-
posed does not go TO absolute exclusion. Is il the correct
mode 10 prohibit foreign commodities under the guise OF
Huy me wholesale market price upon which this duty
Is computed is that fixed by the American manufacturer
Thcbetcr course will be to pass law directly prohibiting
the importation oil these articles Ii would probably he
admitted that we have no such power. Have we not as
much power 10 do it directly indirectly? Why not
adopt at the continental system of Napoeon B,
emitting 10 barn the present stocks Of foreign goods as he
did, The system OF smuggling under such enormous en-
enlargement would probably keep The market well sup
Piled
Mr. Horn opposed to the principle of the amend
ment lie had made calculation of its actual effect upon
course oil impOraiiOns. Ii showed only that The
duties much increased beyond the present rate but
that after few operations, they could fail of being actu
ally Prohbitory. He willing 20 far enough to pro-
tect the manufacturers fully bat could 20 quite 10 the
extent contemplated by This amenju ent. The duty on
yard Of cloth which costs hilngs sterling say dollars
adding English expenses II 2 per cent and exchange
10 per cent will be 81 IL 2 cents, which add an i'm
porting profit OF 10 per and the market price cannot
be less han 80 % cents per yard. subsequent impor-
taon oil an article oil the cost with duty Of 90 per
cont upon S3 %, the market value being I 81 cents
duty, together with 10 per cent. importers profit would
bring the market value to 50 SO per square yard Upon
third operation OF importing article of tho same cost
with the addition OF the duty OF 30 per upon 81 So
taken "a the current market value, being - duty and
the addition oil 10 per importers profit would bring
the value Of the article s. 80 per square ward
Another succeeding operation would, ia The manner
bring the value 10 50 90 per square yard Il will readily
be seen that system, leading these results is not
merely pIoecton-but actually prohibition in its nevita-
bic consequences
Mr.. Bates OF Massachusetts, was aware that as the
amendment stood, the rate Of duty proposed was much
more Than was pr0Pcr.-iIc only considered tie amend
mcn settling te principle that duties were TO be COM
rate Of duty cannot be fixed unl the duty upon wool is
seied on which the rJc OF duty cloth must depend
When that is determined thea tls rate can be fixed at The
proper point
Mr. Stewart amidst loud cries Of question from all
paris eli The Hall. lie said the gentlemen called
for e question, the longer lac should continue TO address
them lie originally for the purpose Of correcting
the statement OF his colleague (Mr Ilorn) That colcu
ldiou entirely based upon assumptions which neither
had could have, an actual existence WHY should
the duty be added 10 te foreign cost and charges? That
was not the criterion fixed by tie amendment 1t was