Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1832-02-15

toners in the world. In other words, they are
prohibited, under the penalty stated, from trad
mo with all parts of the world but the manufac-
turios States, precisely as the British American
Colonies were prohibited from trading with ali
parts of the world but the mother country. The
principle Of the prohibition is strictly identical in
both cases, and we have only to substitute IS ma
nufac turing States" for smother country" and
.. Southern States for American Colonies"
to have the story of The wrongs and expressions
of our common ancestors literally transferred
to portion of their posterity. In point OF fact,
however, there is this striking difference: The
colonial restrictions of our ancestors were al
most purely nominal, because the mother conn
try afforded them the best market in the world,
both for their sales and purchases. The very re-
verse of this is true as it regards the restrictions
imposed upon the trade of the Southern States
The markets from which these restrc tons are in
tended to exclude them, are the very best III the
world, while that to which they are intended to
confne them, is decidedly the worst. Conclu-
sve proof of this is found in the fact, that they
still continue to trade to the prescribed markets
paying the heavy penalty. rather than trade with
the manufacturing States, without paying any
penalty al all Regarding the protecting duties
in the light of fines add fortctures Tor violating
this new code of colonial restriction. we have on
~ IN see the revenue derived from this source
snuan,lered in improvements, and other forms OF
expenditure in the favored region, to have per-
fec, picture of Rome and Italy, furishing in
bIoacd prosperity upon the plumber OF the sub
ject provinces.
In confirmation of the views here presented.
all the phenomena exhibited in the manufacture
ing States, will be found, equally with those ex:
hibltcd IN the planting States, to correspond
with the idea that the protecting duties are spe.
cfC aud ruinOus taxes on the industry oil The
South. and sustaining bountes TO the industry OF
the North. With very small share of the ma
tural advantages enjoyed by the planting states.
the manufacturing States are every where COW
cred with the monuments and evidences OF
| thriving and prosperous industry. which has
scarcely any parallel, while the former equal
" covered with melancholy memorials Of thrift
less toll, impoverishment and ruin.
1t is impossible that these phenomena can ex-
list without cause, and no known cause so natu-
rally accounts for them as the unequal action of
the government. The most intelligent advocates
of the manufactures allese, that the repeat of the
protecting duties would produce scene of desc
lation in the manufacturing States. as striking
as that which is now exhibited in the planting
States. This is distinct admission of all that
the Committee have said of the unequal operation
| of the protecting duties. Congress has no alchem'
&c powers, and certainly has not yet discovered
the philosophers stone. Its taxation cannot
therefore, dlffuse wealth over one part Of the
Union. without taking it from another. Aud
however disguised aud complicated the process
by which the transfer Is made. no degree
| Of prosperity can be communicated to the
| manufacturing States, by taxing the rival
produc tons OF the exporting States, without
diminishing in an equal OF greater degree,
| the wealth OF the latter In pecuniary point OF
view. most assuredly. taxation can only be a
blessing to those wh0 receive the taxes. directly
or indirectly; and the allegation, that the repeal
Of the discriminating taxes upon imports would
ruin the manufacturers. ~ an admission that they.
| in effect receive those taxes. What right OF the
, manufacturers would be violated by reducing
the duties to d revenue sealei Would it be any
thing more than the assumed right of taxing their
fellow citizens? How would the reduction of
the duties iniure thcmS Could it By human pos
sbiity, be in any other wav. than by substiut-
ing same other production of domestic industry
for the protected mannfac lures? And can it be
doubted, that the producers of the substituted
articles have natural, unalienabe and cOnsttu-
| tionaI right to introduce and use them, and that
they will be as much benefited by the restoration
of their right SO to introduce and use them, as
the manu- acturers can possibly be by their ex,
clusion.
In conclusion, the committee will present in
few words. the estimate thew have formed of the
relative burthens conferred BY the protecting sys
TEN upon the three geographical divisions OF 'heU-
ion, the northern, the southern, and the western.
When duties operate merely as taxes upon con.
sumption. there can be no great inequality in the
burthens they impose upon the different portions
of the Union and whatever inequality there may
be, as it is founded upon larger consumption,
it may BE- fairly presumed to be &C accompanied by
a corresponding ability to consume. But regard
ing the protecting duties discriminating
and partial tayes-upon production. there Is no
thing but inequality in their operation. As the
committee have already stated the protected ma
nLfscterers do not bear any burthen imposed up
On the community by the enhanced price OF their
own productions On the contrary, as most of
them sell those productions to a much larger
amount than they consume OF all productions,
foreign and domestic, enhanced in their price
by import duties, il follows, that the boun.
ties thew receive on their prOduC tons, are much