Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1842-08-17

Does he intend il should be inferred thaf
only that amount would be used in packs
ing crop Of 100000 of bales! Or that
il the whole amour, necessary 10 be used
had been imported. i, would have given
ouly that small amount OF revenue, unief
the duty proposed in this bill! If either
bo intended, he greatly mistakes. Asainsi
such inference, he (Mr. C.) appealed TO
every Quo acquainted with the subject.
both as to the accuracy Of his statement oi
the quantity ofbaggins required Tor q oa'e
OF cotton of 400 pounds, aud to every ono
capable Of making the mos, simple calcula-
iion, what would be the number oil yards
required for crop. such as he assumed .he
present would be; and what the amount oi
the duty would he At the rate proposed.
But the fact stated by the Chairman IS
important. uuI leads 10 very important
conclusions, though very different from
what he Intended. Though il does not
prove THAR only three millions OF yards
were required, or that the proposed duty
OH bagg,ns would only give Sl5O,O0O, II
all used we're imported; il conclusively
proves ,ha, only that amount passed ihro
the custom house and paid duty, and that
the residue did not pay duties, Now. II is
OF no snail Importance to ascertain what
was The amount excluded by the domestic
article, in consequence Of The duty COM
pared 10 that imported, when We have be-
fore US The question ofimposiug such duty
as that proposed by thi, bill. Two millions
of bales would, OF five anh half yards TO
the bale require eleven millions of yards:
so that, If only three were imported. eight
would have TO be supplied al hnmc-a
pretty large proportion of the whole, Que
would suppose, for the benefit Of the Aen-
lucky manufactures. Now sir, il is Il point
of no little importance 10 know what was
,he dul; iu lSIc on tsssins. ii mad been
much reduced under The compromise, and
he supposed was something less than three
ceuts the yard. Tha, amoun, was stuff
cicnt 10 exclude eight eIevenths OF The bag
giug used; and ycs, in the face OF this fact,
aud with the profession (daily repeated by
the ad, coates Of the billy that they only
aim a, FUR competition between The for.
cign and domestic articles, il IS proposed
TO double nearly The duiy-and that, too.
under bill declared TO be for rereuuc, and
not protection. This duty. then, compar.
a,ivcly low as it was, So excluded The mn
ported hassiue. as 10 give rcvenuc less
than Sl00,000. And what do you sup
pose. sir, would have been The result, had
il been FIVE, Instead oflhrec cents the yard!
The probability is, either the entire cxtlu
sion. or nearly so, oflhe imported article.
and liulc or no revenue. Such al least.
would have been the effect. if We arc 10
believe the Senators from Kentucky, who
seem agreed that cotton baSs!uS cannot he
ia their Stale AT less than sixteen cents the
yard; and that If the duty is no, raised 10
five cents, the manufacturers must stop
But he (Mr C.) did not think so. lie be
licved that they would still so on. Bul. if
NOT. aHdyihe whole amount used should be
imported. il would give revenue a, =
ceuts duty on the running yard. as he pro.
pused, Of S200. .00D-which would be, $40.
600 more ,han wha, would be received al
6 cents iha yard snn ihree piiiinnsnf earis.
supposine that that quantity would esiill
imported under so high duty. II i. clear
that 5 cents the square yard. or s the run
ming, would be duty for proiertion, md
No, for revenue. lie would not undertake
the task Of attempting to discriminate be-
tween incidental and protective duties for
manufactures; but he would assert that,
whenever duty was raised so high as 10
diminish the rcveuue-ihat IL. 10 reduce !!
below the greatest amount OF revenue that
could be derived from the artIcle-it could
not Justly be considered n revenue duIy.
The excess .f du,v a!.ove the pom, o! the
greatest revenue would be exclusively fur
protection; and protection would. IN such
cases. be clearly the principal. and revenue
bur the incident. But hc did not think
that 2 cents dury on the yard would sop
the manufacturers Of hageiug, though it
would probably greatly increase The im
ported article. Us cents on the running
ward would Limiuish il, He believed thai
there was great fallacy in What is called
protection: bu, he would reserve wlai he
had 10 say on that point for some other
stage of The discussion.
We are also told that il is Il great mis-
take 10 suppose thai the price of the do
nestle Article was Increased i'll consequence
OF the duty, or that the loss of the planter
was equal 10 The duty. Fortunately, the
facts brought out on this occasion were
sul!icieu, 10 expos the falIacy Of the doc
,riuce, that duties did mol increase prices
From uudoubtcd information IN his posses
sion US he had already stalled. the invoice
price Of imported basgins this year may
Le put down al ahou, 8 crnis the running
yard. Allow cent per yard for the ex-
pense of delivering il in Charleston. (which
he supposed would be near the uulh,) and
q ccu.s duty on The running yani; uud the
cos, in Charleslon, including all would be
I6 cenls the yard-prcc:scll What is said
to be The cost of the article at Louisville.
Assuming the per cent. laid on for profit
by the dealers in both places TO be the
same. it would follow that The Carolina
planters. and those Of the Southwest, who
&c, irom kcutucky. would pay the same
price for lhcir bageins; with this difference
that for every yard The former used, they
would pay 6 cents 10 the treasury; while
from the latter, who xould pay as much
for the article. The treasury would not re-