Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-02-16

and expressions of oar common ancestors litcraIlv
transferred to portion ut their pos,cr;tv Z
point OF Tact, however, there is this striking diff
cnce: The colonial restrictions OF our oncos,,,
were almost purely nominal, because the no,hcr
country afforded them the best market in the wcrJ
both for their sales and purchases The yerv r
verse OF tins is true as 1T regards tho restrictions
imposed upon the trade of tho southern STATE.
The markets from which those Restrictions mo !;
tended to exclude them, are the very best it tho
world while that to which, they are inton,laJ Ia
! com6nc them, is decidedly the worst. Coincidence
proof of this is found in the fact, that thcv .t;I
continue to trade to the prescribed markets. .p,v.
ing the heavy penalty, rather than trade with 10
manufacturing States, without paying any pcnnltv
! at all Regarding the protecting duties in the ipht
oil ihcs and iOrtcturcs for violating this cods
oil colonial restrictions, we have only to see tho
revenue derived from this source sguandrrcd in i'm
proVcmentS, and other forms of expenditures i'm Tho
'''oreu region, TO have perfect picture of Rome
anu , italy h"uriShing in bloatcd prosperity upon
inc pundcr Of the subject provinces.
In continuation OF the views here presented, all
the phenomcnn exhibited in the nianulacturino
states, Will DO found, equally with those exhibited
IN The planting States, to correspond with the idea
tlat the protecting duties specific aud runous
taxes on the industry OF the south, and sustaining
bounties to the industry of the north. With Il very
small share of the natural advantages cnioyed bv
the planting States, the manufacturing States arc
every where covered with monuments and evi,lcn
ces OF thriving and prosperous industry, which
mas scarcely any parallel, while the former are
equally covered with melancholy memorials OF
thrttlcss toll, impoverishmcnt, and ruin.
1t is impossible that these phenomena Gun cy
list without cause, and no known cause so natural
ly acc UNITS tor them the unequal action of the
government The most intelligent advocates ftho
manufacturers alego, that the repeal of the PRO
tectng duties would produce scene of deso!at;on
in tho manufacturing States, as striking as that
which is now exhibited in the planting States
This is distinct admission of all that the COM
mt.ee have said OF the unequal operation of tho
protecting duties. Congress has no alchcmic pow
ers, and certainly has not yet discovered the phi
losophcrs stone Its taxation, cannot, there fore
diiiuso wealth over part of the Union without
taking 1T from another. And how ever disguised
ahG complicated the process by which the trans
Ter Is made no degree of pecuniary prosperity can
DC communicated to the manufa curing States by
taxing the rival productions of the EXPORTING States
"Nhou' diminishing, IN an equal or greater de
gree, tho wealth of tho latter. In a pccuui,rv
| point OF view, most assurodly, taxation cam oui,
he blessing to those who receive the taxes d.
rcctly or indirectly; and the allegation that tho
repeal of the discriminating taxes upon imports
would ruin the manufacturers, is an admission
that they, III effect, receive those taxes What
right OF the manufacturers would be violated by
reducing the duties to revenue scale? Would il
be any thing more than the assumed right of tax
| ing their elow-ctizcns? How would Tho reduc
ten OF the duties injurc them? Could it, by hui
man possibility be III any other way, than bv sub
shutting some other productions of domestic in
dustry, tor the protected manufactures? And can
1t be doubted, that the producers of the substituted
| articles have natural, unaenablc, and constitu
tiona right to introduce and use them and that
they will be as much benefited by tho restoration
OF their right SO to introduce and use them as the
manufacturers possibly be by their exclusion
In conclusion, tho committee will present, in a
| few words, the estimate they have formed of the
relative burthens and benefits imposed and on(crr-
cd by tho protecting system upon the three REQ
graphical divisions of the Union, the northern
the southern, and the Western States SO far as
the protecting duties operate merely taxes upon
consumption, there can be great inequality in
The Durthens they impose upon the different portions
OF the Union " whatever inequality there NAV be-
as 1t Is founded upon larger consumption, it may
be fairly presumed to be accompanied by CORES
pondng ability to consume. But regarding the
protecting duties Observation-Disclosures and
partial taXes-upon production, thorc is nothing
but inequality iii their operation. AS the commit
tee have already stated, the protected manufactu-
rers do not bear any part of the burthen imposed
upon 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 will equal the amount which they
consume OF all productions, foreign and domestic
enhanced in their price by import duties, it follows,
that the bounties they receive their productions
are much greater than the taxes they pay on their
consumption. The committee will now 90 onn sian
further. 1t will not be denied that the manufactu
ring States produce larger amount Of protected
manufactures than will equal the amount consumed
by their entire population Unprotected rival foreign
manufactures. Viewing the manufacturing SfatCs
therefore, as consolidated community the appre-
gate amount of the burthcns imposed upon them
by the whole protecting SYSTEM is not cquu! to the
amount OF the boUntics conferred upon them by
that system; a fact which fully explains what
to many seems TO be unaccountabe-the untirinr
perseverance, and increasing unanimity with which
the protecting system, in all it's branches is main
tanned by those States Regarding the protecting
system therefore, as it operates hofi upon product
ION and consumption it imposes no burthcu at all
upon the manufacturing States, considered as ono
entire community.
The operation Of this system upon lie southern
or planting States is almost precisely the reverse
OF what it is upon the northcrn manufacturing
States. The former certainly consume do largely
of articles affected by the protecting duties as any
OF the other States; and consequently bear their
due proportion of the burthcns imposed by those
duties on the consumption of the country. But
the whole of the burthen which these duties inn
pose upon production, falls almost exclusively upon
the planting States through their productions, for
the same reason, and to at least the same extent,
that they operate bountes to the rival product
ions of the manufacturing States IL is scarcely
taxes levied upon the productions of tho
planting States, diminish the cxchangoable
value of those productions, less than they in
crease the exchangeable value of the rival product
ions OF the manufacturing States. The former
result is both the and the measure of the lat
ter. The lowest estimate that be reasonably
MADE OF tho diminution produced in the exchange
able value of tho southern staples of expectation,
Is 20 per cent. one half of the protecting duty
imposed upon t1eir conversion into manufactures,
by the foreign exchange. II is believed 60 De, in
point OF fact much greater. But even according
to this estltra't the specific and exclusive bur
then imposed Upon t&S exports II mo parting
States would 1c seven millions or dollars ASST
ming that their exports amount to fhirtv-Gyc mil
lions and that imposed upon cotton and rice alone,
would be six millions But the value of the
cotton, tobacco, and rice consumed in tho United
States is much diminished as that which is OK
rfrI f,,,,, 4