The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1842-06-15
From The Georgia Argus.
A PROTECTIYE TARIFFS

a PROTECTIVE IhhlI
Although the fact is before US, anu we nave ! toI
some time been satisfied that ltWouia oe so's5s'
We can hardly realize it, that men,Wno hgse tot
wears been The strictest advocates of State Rights
Doctrines: who have held up to the country N
stronp terms the evils of the protective system;
+: who have unsparingly denounced it as unconst-
: tutiopal, unjust and oppressive: who have con-
tended that the only safety of the people was to
: be found in adhering strictly to the letter OF the
! Constitution; should now, ard all at once, be-
come the open and avowed advocates OF this
same protective system If we&were actuated
bya desire for party triumph alone, we should
I. be glad to see it, because although we believe
that there will be many who will abandon their
old faith, yet We feel fully satisfied that they
cannot in Georgia, carry with them enough To-
give them the power; we feel that as strongly as
old party associations and party influences oper,,
ate upon men, there are thousands OF the ola
State Rights party of Georgia who love their
country better than their party, and Will not sac
rifce their principles even for Party's sake; we
feel that however they may disagree with ussas
to men, and as to many measures, they cannot
they will not differ as 10 this question. But we
regret that any should be lead Off satisfied OF Its
fataltendency as fully as of our own existence,
we had hoped there would have been no division
in the South upon it, but as the division must
exist, as many Of the old opponents OF the sys-
tenn have become its advocates, we must endeaV-
or to show them the error oftheir ways, and II
we cannot persuade them to pause before they
go too far to recede, we shallat least make an
effort to prevent others from following them.
The protective system carries injustice and
tyranny upon the face of it; because in its very
terms, it implies the taking of the proceeds OF the
labor of one man to give to another, without an
equivalent. Every man is or ought to be at lo-
erty to pursue such occupation as may best snit
his taste, and if from want OF industry or Skill,
orfrom want of demandIfor the production OF
his labor he should not be able to make it Proht-
able,he is at liberty to change it and ought to do
o;shis neighbors certainly ought not to be COM
PEELED to contribute of their earnings to enable
him to pursue an occupation for the products of
which they have no use, or which from his want
of skill or of industry, he may not be able to
make profitable to himself If man were to
sit down in community to cultivate flower
garden, or toraise monkeys or parrots, his neigh.
bors would think it very unjust that they should
be taxed to support him and his garden, or his
monkeys, and parrots: yet it would be equally
unjust to compel them to pay shoemaker two
sdollars pair for his shoes, when they could get
them elsewhere as good at one dollar! In prIn-
ciple there is no kind of difference the object of
each is to enable man to prosecute pursuit at
the expense of others, which he cannot make
profitable to them.
The newfedged advocates of sprotection are
sbasIpgs its defence upon some very strange
grounds; zone is thatthe South is likely to be de-
prived of market for its cotton by the produc-
s%tion, of the article in the East Indies Admit
ting all that is contended for in relation to tho
be true, it does not alter the principle, nor ceufd
we be benefited by It's Supposing that India
cotton can be brought tothis country and sold in
the city of New York at less price than we can
afford to make it for, it is just that the people OF
the North should be compelled to pay us three
or four per cent more for cotton than they would
have to pay for it elsewhere? or is any body fool
enough to suppose that they would do it! Cot.
ton is produced in South Carolina, Georgia, Ala
bama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas, and
partially in North Carolina, Virginia, and Ten
nessee. If it should be found that India cotton
of as good quality can be brought to this coun-
try and sold at four cents per pound, and that we
cannot make it for less than seven, does any bo-
dy believe that the people of the States who can
not grow cotton having the power in Congress,
would permit the present duty of three cents per
pound to remain on cotton for day! or suppo-
sing that the people of Texas should produce cot
ton which they could afford to sell cheaper than
we can, is there in all the United States man
who is such stark.mad fool as to believe that
the States which do not and cannot make cotton,
but who are obliged to use it would permit the
duty of three cents per pound foreman for day!
Can any man who pretends to have his senses
about him believe that they would consent to pay
seven or six or even five cents per pound for our
cotton while they could get it from Texas or
from India either as of good ifnot better quality
at four cents! No-when the present duty was
imposed upon cotton it was done to make show
of fairness and equality; the advocates of pro-
tective system would at that time have just as
soon have made it twenty cents as three, because
there was no place in the world where cotton
could be produced as low as the United States,
and with or without duty they knew there
could be no competition; it is like imposing du-
ty upon the expectation of corn in Ohio or hogs
into Kentucky. Thenwhat good will protec-
tive tariff do the Southl-We ask the particular
attention of readers this part of the subject
IF cotton can be produced in India cheaper than
we can produce it, she can of course drive us
out of foreign markets and all that is to keep her
from driving us out of our own market is high
protection in favor Of our cotton. Now there are
only nine States which produce cotton and three
of these North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee
to very limited extent. There are eighteen
: States which do not and cannot produce it, they
are all compelled toNse it-they have the power