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

state ana meet tho argument fairly, invite cor
recon OF my statement oft, ii necessary. Il
Is alleged 'hat The system operates prcjudically
to the cotton planter, by Diminishing the forcign
demand Tor his staples; that we cannot sell To
Great Britain, unless we buy from her; tina, tho
import duty, is equivalent to an export duty and
falls upon the cotton grower; that South Carroll
ia pays a di>proportionGtc quote of the public
rcvcuuc; that an abandonment of the protective
policy would lead TO an augmcn alton of our
exports of an amount not less than one hundred
and fifty millions of dollars; and finally, tina, the
South cannot part axe of the advantages of man
nfacturlng, If there be any Let us cXamuo
THESE various propositions, III 0ctail |. That
the foreign demand for cotton is diminished; and
that we cannot sell to Great Britain unless we
ouy rom her. The demand of both our great
| 'orclgn customers Is constantly and annually in,
c'eosing' 1t is true, that the ratio ofthe in
erc"s' may not be equal to that of production,
out thiS Is owing to the fact that the power of
producing the raw material is much greater
ana Is therefore constantly in advance of tho
power o. consumption. single fact will Illus
ira e. The average rrodu, c Of laborers engaged
IN the cultivation of cotton may be estimated at
i've bales, or fifteen hundred weigh, to the hand
Surprising the annual average consumption of
each individual who uses cotton cloth 10 be five
pounds, one hand can produce enough Of the
raw material to clothe three hundred.
The argument comprehends two errors, one
OF fact and the other of principle. 1t assumes
that we do not In fact purchase of Great Britain.
w nat Is the true state OF the case? There are
Ger am, but very few articles which it Is thouphs
sound policy requires that we should manuiac~
lure al home, and on these the tariff operates.
But, with respect to all the rest, and much Shc,
larger number Of articles of tas,o, fashion. or
ntiIity, they are subject TO no other than reve-
nue. duties, and are freely introduced. | have
before me from the treasury statement Of our
imports from England, Scotland, and Ireland,
including ten years preceding the last, and three
quarters OF the last year, from which will an
pear That, although there are some flnctua,ions
III the amount OF the different years, the largest
amount imported in any one year has been SINCE
the tariff OF 1924, and that the las, wears i'm
po'tatlon, when the returns of the fourth quarter
shail oe receiVec, Will probably be the greatest
In the whole term of eleven years.
Now, if 1t be admitted that there is lrss
Hmount of the protected articles imported from
ureat britain, she may be, and probably is
compensated fer the deficiency, by the increased
consumption in America Of the articles of her
| industry not falling within the scope of the pell-
| cy 81 our protection. The establishment Of
manufactures among us eXcites the creation of
wealth, and thus gives new powers Of consump-
| ton, which are gratIhed by the purchase of TO-
reign OBJECTS. poor nation can never be n
great consuming nation. Its poverty will limit
ITS consumption TO bare subsistence
lhe erroneous principle which the argument
|
taking care that Great Britain shall be enabled
| 10 purchase from us without eXactlno from Great
britain the corresponding duty. If it be irur,
on one side, that nations bound to shape
then policy in reference to the ability of foreign
Powers, it must be true on both sides of the
Atlantic AND tins reciprocal obligation ought
to be emphatcally regarded towards the nation
| supplying the raw material, by the manufactu
ring nation, because the industry of the latter
gives four or five values to what had been pro-
duced by the industry of the former
But, does Great Britain practise towards us
upon The principles which we are now REQUIRED
to observe IN regard to herr The exports to the
United Kingdom, as appears from the same trea
sury statement just adverted TO, during eleven
| years, from 1921 to 1881, and exclusive of the
fourth quarter of the last year. fall short of the
amount OF imports by upwards of fOrty-sX mil
lions of dollars, and the total amount, when the
returns OF that quarter are received, will ex-
cced nifty millions of dollars Il is surprising
no" we have been able to sustain, for so long a
| time, a trade so very unequal. We must have been
absolutely ruined byit if the nnfavorable balance
had not been neutraIlzed by more profitable
commerce with other parts Of the world. Ofall
nations Great Britain has the least cause TO COM
PLAIN of the trade between the two Countries
Oar imports from that single Power are nearly
0ne-third OF the entire amount of our importa-
TONS from all foreign countries together. Great
DFitain constantly acts on the maxim of buying
10y "'i"' cue wants anu cannot produce, and
sellng TO foreign nations the utmost amount she
can In conformity with this maxim she cx-
cludes articles of prime necessity produced by
uS-equally IT not more necessary than any Of
her industry which we tax, although the adj
mission OF those articles would increase orr abi
lity to purchase from her, according to the ar
gurnent of gentlemen.
| If we purchased still less from Great Britain
than we do, and, our conditions were rcvers-
ed, so that the value Of her imports from this
country exceeded that Of her exports to It, she
would only then be compelled to do what we
have so long done, and hat South Carolina
does' IN her trade with Kentucky, make up for
The uniavofable balance by trade with other
places and countries. How does she now dis.
pose of the one hundred and sixty millions of
dollars worth of cotton fabrics, which she an
nuaIIy sells! Or that amount the United States
90 not purchase five per cent. What becomes
81 the other nInetyfive per cent? j. it not sold
10 other Powers, and would not their markets
remain II ours were ally shu'? Would she
NOT continue, as she now finds it her interest,
to purchase the raw material from us, to supply
| nose markets. Would she be guilty of the
Jolly OF deprving herself of nnrkets TO tho
amount ct upwards Of s SO O0O, coo, because
we reused her market for some eight or ten
mlonss
But there were diminution Of the Br fish
demand for cotton equal 10 The loss of market
for the few British fabrics which are within tho
scope OF our protective policy, the question
would still remain, whether the cotton planter
is not amply Unidentified by the creation of adj
drtIonal demand elsewhere? With rcsucct TO
the cotton-grower, il is the ToTALITY of the de-
mand, and not It's DIsTRIBUTGoN, which affects
LIS interests. If any system of policy will aug
incht the aggregate OF the demand, that system