Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-08-17

VI tilill, lSt0naneOuSy.
To clucidatc this point, we will take basis for
our reasoning the amount of revenue received from
commerce in 1876.
rs the income of tina, year from the Customs was
S2lOOO,OOO, ANA the duty % per cent, the imports
paying duties must have amounted TO $96,000,000
We have commended that although this was the mo-
neg value and that value on which the duties were
paid, yet that the real value ofthc imports of that
year was 80 per cent. less in other words they
were iutrinslcally worth only S4S,0000OO and that
an apparent income from commerce of S2lO00O00
then, was not an realty greater than income from
the same source of Sl2000,OO0 now. This we shall
SHOW presently Forty eight millions real value fdu
table imports bore i'll 1916 about the same proportion
to numbers i'll that year. that fity-eight millions
of dutahlc imports did TO numbers in 1880
Let us assume, therefore, for the present that the
real value of the imports in 1916 was S4S 600 00O
The value OF the imports in 1880, being little over
500, OOO,OOO gives increase of 10 millions I'm IA
years. The population fthe United States increases
at the rate ot per cent. per annum ut which rate
the imports, had they increased in the same ratio
would have amounted to nearly $4,000 600 i'm the
same period of time. We thus see that the amount
of imports required to produce a revenue of ~ mill
lions, ut IL l-2 per cent, exceeds by AZ millions
what the customs have yielded in IA years, accord
ing To the actual Increase, and exceeds by % mil
lions what they would have produced had they in
creased I'm the ratio of the population. What il
would have taken % years to effect TO wit an in
crease OF the imports paying duties TO 100 millions
in the ratio that our numbers have multiplied is
I
the stroke OF pen. Such increase Of the d,,:il
BILE imports as will amount to 100 millions, cannot
be expected, on any principles of just calculation,
before the year 1860 on the data which furnish The
only rational rule on the subject, namely the rate
that we multiply i'll the United States.
Let us now come TO our other position. We have
sad that our imports paying duties which in 1916
bore money value of SO millions of dollars, were
not lntrnscaiy of more value than AZ millions i'm
1872 or which is the same thing, that an nppdrent re-
venue from customs in 1916 Of 81 millions was not
of greater real value than ~ millions i'm 1892 II is not
denied, IN amy quarter, that the money value of our
imports, on which duties were paid i'm 1916 was 96
millions of dollars. They must have reached this
SUM To have yielded revenue of 24 millions mt %
per cent. But the value of the imports in 1880 was
MS we have seen, 5S millions. There has then been
fall of value. To what is this attributable? There
arc only two NODES except gluts and occasional
over-prOduction, by which commodities fall i'm va
uc-that is, either by AN alteration in the value
OF money, or by an increase of the quantity of ar
lclcs for which il is exchanged, without cor
respondent extension of the demand. If money
undcrgoes alteration, and articles generally
fall in price, unless from cheapened production
the only rational explanation of such Il circum-
stance is, that the consumption is stationary and the
population has come 10 stand Ic there is no
change in money, and the costs of production are
cheapcned, there must be n correspondent extern
sion of the demand, or the value of the improve
ment would be entirely lost. If there is n cores
pondent extension of tie demand the iChols price or
aggregate Udtue will remain the same. Thus if
100000 yards Of cotton cloth sold i'm 1916 for
Sl,OOOOOO, and the quantity is increased i'm 1882 to
100000 yards, the price per yard falling from 81
TO DO cents, from cheapcned production, the aggre-
gate value will be still Sl,000,000, as the price has
been reduced in proportion to the increase of guam
tity.
There could then have been no real fall in the aqgre-
gaze Uat"e of our imports since 1916 unless our popu
lallon had come TO stand and consumption had be-
come stationary. We know however, that an increas-
ed quantity ofioregn goods has been consumed i'm the
United States nearly i'll the ratio of the increase of
population Itollows that there could have been no
fall in the prices Of such goods from diminished de-
mand in the IT, States but that the fall taking place
from the costs of production having been cheapened
the i0hoe price or aggregate Uae must have remain
ed the same, or tie Improvements i'm machinery
would not have been made by which the fall has
been effected. The conclusion is inevitable 1.-THE
quantity of our imports had doubled between 1916
and 1882, the price falling in the same ratio. thew
would still have been 96 millions of dollars But
they have declined to SO millions n fall of at least
40 per cent The final inference is not TO be resist
ed, ;hat the change has been this extent at least,
in the value of money, and not in the value of the
imports, looking at their aggregate amouni-C Charles
HI Patriot.