The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-02-02

| by them for the adoption OF the system, and
with much success IS, that the price Of products
and property in the manufacturing States mus
be thereby increased, which charge proves th,
| beneficial operation OF the system on them i
is by this very increase of price, which must bs
paid by their fellow citizens of the South, tina
the indemnity TO the manufacturer is effected
And by means of this, the fruits Of our toll and
laborw which on every principle Of justice, ough. &c
belong TO ourselves, are transferred from us &C
them. The maxim, that the consumers pay
strictly applies TO US. We are mere consumers
and destitute Of all means of transferring the bur
den from ourselves to others.
"The case, then, fairly stated between us, and
the manufacturing States, is, that the taiH gives
| IN our own market in the sale OF their goods
and deprives US of the benefit of competition
OF purchasers for our raw material"
This, sir, was the gravamen Of all our oppo
nents to the tariff that duties were laid on arti-
Giles which were manufactured here, and as tc
which the manufacturers received compensa-
ton in increased prices, OF what they sold foI
all they paid as consumers; and that such du-
ties were not laid on articles, as to which they,
like ourselves, were consumers only.
The following is an extract from an address
OF the same convention, on the part Of South
Carolina to her sister States, after she had null
iiucu tIc tdIiu laws. III grave, soieinu, anu
well considered appeafto these States the princi-
plies of tariff, with which alone it was de-
clared that the State would be satisfied, are laid
down, and this of taxing the articles now duty
free, was the leading point insisted upon.
is there any justice in taxingthe iron, salt,
sugar; the coarse woollens and the calcoes of the
poor and middling classes, Of the farmer and
mechanic, and not taxing at all the wines, the
silks, and the spices Of the wealthy and luxuri-
Gus classes of society2 OF our importation of
1889, rs millions were duty free, and IS mil
lions paid duty. The articles duty free were,
almost without exception, articles used by the
wealthy, or raw materials used in the factories
whilst the articles taxed are as invariably articles
of necessity, used by those in INDECENT or mode
rate circumstances. There are one hundred
districts represented on this floor, in which there
are not twenty men who would be affected by
duties on wine, and not twenty who are not at
fected by the present tariff.
Having now presented, for the consideration
of the Federal Government, and our confederate
States the fixed and final determination of this
State, in relation to the protecting system, il
mains for US to submit plan of taxation, in
which we would be willing to acquiesce, in a
spirit of mutual concession provided we are
met in due time, and in becoming spirit, by
the States interested in the protection Of manu-
features.
We believe that upon every just and equita-
BILE principle of taration, the whole list Of pro-
tected articles should be imported free Of duty,
and that the revenue derived from lighter i'm
ports, should re raised exclusively from the I'M
protected articles; or that whenever duty is
imposed upon protected articles imported, an
excise duty of the same rate, should be imposed
upon all similar articles manufactured in the
United States. This would be as near an APP
Al ,nI, oN,II ha
made in system ofindireci taxation.n But we are
willing to make large offering to preserve the
Union, and with distinct declaration that il is
a concession on our part, we will consent that
the same rate of duty may be imposed upon the
protected articles provided that no more revenue
be raised than is necessary to meet the demands
of the Government for constitutional purposes
and provided that duty substantially uniform
be imposed upon all foreign imports"
This. point however was not YIELDED TO us,
and there was long list of articles free of duty.
How was this done AT the Instance of the an
Ii tariff party No. But in spite of their earnest
and continued remonstance. The list was made
out by Tariff man, and with special view to
the benefit Of the Tariff interest. Mr.. Clay in
the same article to which ! have referred, gives
the following uncontradcted account of this mat
ter:
"Then beyond that period is the provision for
cash duties, home valuations a long and liberal
list Of free articles, carefully made ont By my
friend from Rhode Island (Nr. Knight, en-
pressly for the benefit Of The manufacturers.
A second meeting of our Convention was call
ed to consider the Compromise act. Its leading
provisions are discussed in the report Of that bo-
DIV, and one of the leading, indeed the most prom
inent objections presented in that report to the
act of March, 1888, was, that certain articles
.J.,,,t hat Inn
on that point:
at is this aspect of the question, which has
reconciled US to the provisions of the new Bill,
Certainly not free from objections which pro-
vide for the introduction Of wines, silks, worst
eds and number Of other articles free Of duty."
II was Objectionable, greatly objectionable,
but in consideration of other compromising BEN
efits the Convention was reconciied' to ii. II
did not approve, but was reconciled. Now, sir,
how stands this whole matter? The principle
that Injuries should be taxed, at least equally
with necessaries no one ever has or can contro-
vert In addition to which, il is the principle for
which we Of the anti Tariff party have in all time
strenerously contended, as not only just on the
well settled and admitted principles of political
economy but as the only principle which is not
grossly unjust, and unequal in its operation.
The combined influence of experience and ar
gument has convinced our opponents. They
say to US, gentlemen you are right in this matter,
and as we need more money, let us not dis
turb the Compromise, but let us tax those luxu-
res which none Of us manufacture, and all of
us use And we refuse to do it. To what end
have we labored to enforce our arguments? Was
il to convince our opponents, and to obtain the
practical results Of corresponding change in the
system of imposts or merely for the dialectic
triumph-only to show that we could take any
side of the argument and maintain tive would
not then lay taxes on the protected articles, nor
allow the duties TO be taken off other articles
Now, il is proposed, not to increase the duties on
the protected articles, but TO restore the duties
on Injuries, which we protested strenuously
against being taken off. And we again object TO
the duties being laid on. May il not well be