Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1839-12-19
SOUTH CAROLINA-DIRECT TAX.

SOUTH CAROLINA-DIRECT TAX.
The Legislature Of South Carolina assembled at
Columbia on the last Monday in Noyenber-
Gov, Noble, IN his Message, expresses a de-
clded preference OF directsy Of taxation,
Tie indirect system which now prevails, by duties on
imports. In one respect, remarked on a for
mer occasion, il would be preferable but we doubt
whether the people would sit so easy under it-sincc
one cent paid directly into the palms ofihe tax-gath-
e. would be deemed much more oppressive than
dollar paid in the shape of duties simply because in
the one The tax payer cogn zant of the fact,
and IN the other he knows nothing about it. We
have high authority for saying that he who is rob
BED, not knowing It, is not robbed at all - and it is
certain that ""hele ignorance is bliss MS folly to
be WISE. II these aphorsms be correct, it is evil
dent that the indirect system taxation is prefera.
Die TO the direct The latter, il is true mil ht ensure
sncter economy in the administration of the govern
j ment ; but the former would be much more an. TO
keep the public mind in state of fcfment,-the
rank soil fom which demagogues s3ring up, like
aimed men from the Dragons teeth
But we think 1t may well be doubted whether
Gov Noble, aud the party Of which lie is the mouth
piece, Is correct IN the assumption that an cnor.
mhns tribute is annually exacted from the people
by the system OF duties on imports We doubt IT,
because do not believe that the consumers Of the
autable drticiesp1y The dug. We believe, on the
other hand, that large portion of he duly, fnot the
whole oft, is paid by the foreign erporter, and di-
FINISHES his profits, instead of adding TO the burthen
OF the American purchaser We aware that his
assumption is theoretically denied-but we arc not
less aware ii Is practically admitted and indeed 1t is
plDtp q / he Ri 10 I
so, why are we now complaining flhe 9,itlsh Corn
laws Is not the price Of wheat and -four increased
and are not the profits ofthe producer in this conn
Try enhanced, the duty in Great Britain is lower
ed, and precisely in the ratio ITS reduction 1.-THE
South Carolina doctrine be tue. the reduction of
TIE duty upon American produce by the British
government would not help the producer at all but
lis dement's would be confined entirely to The copsu.
mef abroad Again: why are we now seeking to
effect reduction in the duty on tobacco, in En-
gland and on the Continent! Is it to benefit the
loreign consutnerl No. 1t is to augment the pro-
his OF the American producer. Aud again: If
Great Britain should impose duty upon American
cotton, What would be lis effectl Would il raise
the piee Oh That staple in the British markets Not
al all because, having market no where else the
import 10 Great Britain would be undimiushed 1t
would be tax upon the American pfoducels To the
extent OF thai duty therefore. Precisely ia the same
manner do duties imposed by our government ope-
la'e upon the arlle'es upon which they are levied
The prices never have in single Instance been en-
HANGED fact which would Of nsef be demonstra-
i've oil the position FOR which we contend even If il
were not sustained by the analogous supposiions 10
"hch we have above adveritd II this be Inc. the
Ipri. plf fro,
Iar rom beng IAN enormous tribute" annually ex.
aetea nom our own people, is in ruth drawn from
me pockets OF our trans atlantic lrlelds who, in
"i'' ny 'he'f duties upon our products, tax us to
Tue iuli amount Of the collected in tie shane of
Sueh duties upon those products So that what
Jury 'aNe from our tobacco, -four, &c we receive
pach again from their fabrics Of wool, cotton. iron
&c.
MS opinion has led us precisely to The point 10
"h'ch the opposite opinion has led the South Caro-
' S'o"' OF politic'aus-to wit, the advocacy Of the
+ rec 1rdde'thcofy. The difference between Ms
y 'hS: hey are for free trade on one side of the
MUSE only 'ee, on both sides. Then urye MS IN
"o"nuah Inc system Of duties on iorcien impo,ts.
''' ''' ""''o"s IN whose favor this policy would
oPe'''e are permitted TO prohibit many OF The p,o.
"''''"s Of American industry aud to imnose heavy
N''''' upon all vhichlh'y can possibly dispense