Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-10-18

| But, Sir, the MISUNDERSTANDING about one
nineteenth of the aborng classesinsist that the re-
venue ought not to be collected from the wealth OF
the country, but from duties on foreign imports; and
not even by equal, uniform ad vaiorem duty, but by
duty discriminating in favor Of their manufactures
aordng what has been and still is called, incidental
protection. No term is more shamelully perverted In
cidentat means easaat-hdppening 6y chance Is that
the character of the bill before US. duty OF IA cents
an article that costs cen.s-of cents on one that
costs cents, he three articles being iannels,
cottons and calicoes is protection sharpening by
Chance, indeed, Sir, what is incidental protection,
understood and carried out but the most shameful
and unblushing wrong: Every sort Of regular expen-
dure is swollen to the larges, SIZE improvements un.
derteken, which neither sanctioned by the Cons,I
tuition nor common sense Claims rejected, perhaps
hundred times old the hills almost, and frivolous in
the extreme, passed. And then. if by all these
means such charge not raised against the treasury
as TO require Tariff large enough to satisfy the cormo
rant appetite OF the manufacturers, they allowed to
discriminate, and under the general name Of incidental
protection procure all that their modeSy will permit
them TO ask. Incidental and direct proec tion are,
then, the same; and The who attempts at this day,
distinction, either trying to cheat Others to cheat
| himself
But, Sir. whenever protection, whether incidental
or direct rs necessary To The support of any branch OF
manufactures II Is public wrong and public injury.
What IL the first fac. agreed upon; that certain
branch OF manufactures cannot support itself at the
price It can get for what makes 1t s then pauper
upon the parish; and must either receive bnunes, in
the shape Of dulies it give M its business and
go 10 profitable employment IT, in the shape of
duties, you take share of the profits Of the other
Germs of the country, to supply the losses of the
! in question, do you not iLti'c great wrong upon
those you have plundered? And if, by such means,
you able TO keep up this losing concern, will you
not, by diminishing the general wealth. perpetrate
great public injury II is, in truth, like putting
tain number OF persons upon the poor list, and sup
porting them out of the county levy. The country
would clearly be the richer, by the whole amount Of
the r support, had they undertaken it. And,
every man of practical wisdom would give up his pri-
vaie undertaking which could support itself-so it
is, to my mind the part of true wisdom, after giving
every branch Of industry the protection of just and
equal laws, TO leave them 10 thrive perish, they
may be able 10 stand the competition Of rival establish
mens.
1t is, undoubtedly the Part Of duty and Justice, 10
place the whole public burdens, upon tie whole peo-
pie. But this incidental protection incidentally
emps oil those whose business aided by it, from any
share of the public burdens Were you, by law in d.
rect terms, TO exempt manufacturers from taxes, tie
voice Of the country would be raised in indignant
demna,ion. But, by incidental protection, precisely
the same result is accomplished; and many Of those
whom Expresses drawn TO its support Ii is vain
for gentlemen to pretend that such not The result OF
this policy. No human wit fail 10 perceive that
that system Of revenue by which the Government and
the manufacturers are supported, is which places
pie In truth, incidental benefit und incidental wrong
may be regarded as nseparabe, in reference TO all tho
great departments Of industry. 1T is but more polite
way of expressing homely adage that "what is one
man 8 loss is anotlers gain.
But, it is asked, will you destroy, annhilae, the vast
establishments engaged in manufactures; | an.
swer, would not. But would cease to destroy, an
initiate The wealth of the country in their support
They should longer be fed from the general crib by
bnunties and taxes. would refuse any longer TO sup
DOrt rInus
say to them, that for six and twenty years-a period
beyond the lgal infancy of nnn-you have grown aud
fa,tened upon the liberal provision of generous and
ind gent country and row you set up for your
selves; "rooi hog or die.
It, however, does follow that all our manufacture
ing establishments would perish. Those unwsely 10.
Gated extravagantly unskilfully conducted,
would no doubt soon cease 10 be. And this, so far
from being subject of regret ought TO be one of
jocing for the country would be no longer burdened
with the support of improbable Establishments But
many very many OF them, II not all, would survive.
Forced to depend upon their own exertions their in
dustry would be increased their wits sharpened, and
their management improved. They would become
full and valuable members of the community adding to-
and not consuming, lis wealth.
Many northumberland OF incidental protection
very indignant at the proposition to tax tea and
coffee They necessarles Of life, of universal
among the poor say these ncidcn'at politicians and
should therefore be free have heard such arguments
from those who would tax the laLorers shirt 300
per cent the under dress of The milk maid e0 per cent
and the iron for the plough of the small farmer so per
cent And could but IN bitterness Of spirit ask my
self if such dear oyers Of the poor were playing tho
hypoc rite had really cheated themselves into the be-
lief that tie Shirt the flannel undercoat and the
iron plough, not equally essential and necessary 10
the poor n cup OF lea coffee.
One of the great objections entertain 10 incidental
protection that Expresses the pocr by transferring
the fruits of their labor swell The gains of capital
lists. Every cent that is paid for yard of CLOTH over
and above The price at which it could be purchased
under system of free tredr, is either annihated in
supporting the manufacturer, swells the amount OF
his wealth In either event, IT the same thing TO the
poor man. His money IS gone-most unJuslly lost 10
him forever. DO not understand Inc rs being the ad-
vocatc Of system shaped for the benefit of the poor
man. No, Sir, no. / entirely repudate ii. regard
such system species of agrarlonsm and nothing
less. The poor has nterest-a most particular
interest in the Institutions OF freedom-and, as mat
ter of pside-the pride OF eman-should demand TO
pay in proportion his propery-and treat with scorn
bitter indignant scorn-all discrimination IN his
favor. But what do insist upon is, that the poor
shall not be oppressed-that under the spacious gu'se
Of friendship, The poor shall not be crushed beneath
the iron heel of incidental protection. Such, Sir,
tell you, the character Of The bill now under con-
siderai;on.
To llnstrate this view in tangible form, will in.
wife attention TO q table prepared by the honorable gen.
tleman from Pennsylva Mr.. Snyder whose sound
practical views few days snce gave much satisfac
ton 10 the committee.
This table sets forth the of articles, which it
supposed each poor family will consume, with the
tax, amounting to 50 531, which he pays on such art
Giles TO the Fedora! Government The amount IS great
err in fact, because the 50 534 paid first by the inn
porter and only he but every merchant who sells
the articles charges profit this sum- that s,n
truth, doubled 10 the consumer.
Sugar, = lbs per week-duty 2! els. perth.
Coffee, . do. do. do. 9 do do.
Multiply this by SO weeks SO
And for one year 50 IS
To this amount add
2 bushels of SALT at 10 cents duty 90