The North-Carolinian., 1842-06-25

per cent. on It's actual cost. On printed cot
tons the minimum value is 80 cents per square
yard, aud on prints tam article of rsetre gene
raj consumption than any thing efse) it is as
follows:
On prints "a inches wide
Cost per so. yard Duty
9 cents, would pay cts, or 100 per ct. on cost.
is g 8 g so
& 8 37l
The average of prints now imported cost
about s cents per square yard, duty above
80 per cent; while under the present tariff of
2S 1-2 per cent. per running yard on cost,
they can seldom be sold at any profit; the
lower qualities almost entirely excluded
under our present rate Of duty; and it will be
perceived that, to prepare the above article,
costing Sd sterling, for the application Of the
30 per cent. duty, it must be first raised to
the 30 cent minimum, which is done by add
ing 233 Is per cent. on to its actual cost,
then 80 per cent. on that ives 100 per cent.
duty! But this is not all; not satisfied with
so enormous and arbitrary duty on cotton
goods as is here stated, ranging from 80 to
100 per cent, distinction and exception is
for the first time attempted to be made be-
tween colorcd cotton goods, manufactured
by mapping raising, cutting or shearing,''
(called moleskins, cords, iustians, &c) and
other colored cottons, the effect of which dis
tlnction will inevitably be to exclude these ar
ticles entirely: under the present duty, it is
only the finer qualities that car be imported
to any profit, although they are articles ofvery
extensive consumption, and principally among
the working classes, the minimnm in the pro-
posed bill is fixed at fifty cents the square
yard, lin the tariff of 1882 it was 35 cents, J
and the real per centage duty is as follows:
If 27 inches wide
Cost per So yard. Duty.
los cents would pay 5cs., l4Os per ct. on cost.
| g =: j.: ,s ,s :: :: ss. y: -
Under the present tariff; the id 6svrFe' ras
barely introduce an article as low 1ost as 3D.
sterling, although the present duty is only 4
l-2 cents per running yard, or % per cent.
OH cost; lid. sterling is now about the aver
age cost of wha. is imported, and if the id. and
Cd. articles are almost entirely excluded now,
what would be the probable revenue derived
from them with an additional duty of 63 & lO2
per cent. to the present rate as provided for
above? Of course not one cent; therefore
what premium is here held out for smug-
Cling! Only look at the enormity of this dis
elimination against the articles OF moeskins,
(and only yet one manufacturing establish
ment to legislate Fin order to prepare
this article. costing I'D. sterling, for the appli-
cation of the moderate duty of 80 per cent,
an addition of 800 per cent. has first 10 be
put on to the cost 10 raise it to the arbitrary,
and it may well be said, ridiculous value of so
cents per square yarc! Surely this is too
absurd to pass under the false colors of re-
venue duty. Truly, if this be such, should
like to know what would amount to protec-
Ill
sumo largely of the great staple of our coun-
try, particularly those goods manufactured by
mapping or raising, cutting or shearing;" and
it ought to be borue in mind that the manu-
facturer has indirectly large protection on
cotton goods in addition to the duty, viz, that
which is paid by the foreign manufacturer in
the shape of freight, insurance and commits
sions on the raw material, as well as duty on
gether with freight, shipping charges, and in
surance on the manufactured article when
shipped out here, makes Of itselfa very large
per centage; and yet, in addition to this, we
asked to levy tax for the protection of
the home mai aiaCturer TO the tune of 30 to
l40 per cent. upon the cost!! Nru,y the
time has arrived when it is well wafthy the
consideration Of those who are Interested IN
the cultivation of the great staple Of out tesiI,-
try, how long wound it probably be, undef such
course of policy, before the cotton estsnsser
would be deprived Of all foreign maskets9-
Aud our shipping interest-what would then
become OF our carrying trade! A word more,
however, in regard to minimum and specific
duties, and have done. It has been often
asserted in debate that there is precedent in
the tariff of 1892 for specific rates as high as
now proposed, (excepting with n,oeskius,
&c.,) and this seems to have gained general
credence; but the all important fact.is entirely
overlooked, that, while the specific iutyAnow
proposed is nominaliy not much beyond what
It was ten years ago, yet IN the mean tiHlc
the value of goods has undergone decline
Of more than one third, consequently the same
specific duty per yard laid on now is a much
heavier tax, or larger per centage, thar it was
ten years ago; as, for instance, an article of
printed cottons then costing 3D. sterling. or
s cents, and measuring Sc inches wide, was
deemed to have cost 35 cents, and paid 25 per
cent, on that, or S "a cents the yard, being
4S l-2 per cent. on the then cost; now the
same article will cost say cd. sterling, or II
cents; by the present bill it is deemed to cost
, = hat Sah