Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-03-29
100000
o,13O,I4O
SoasM0sz
s1nl aM 063


Assuming that the whole amount of imported articles
bearing duty, is ninety millions, and that the Land
fund will be two millions seven hundred thousand, and
it will require duty of three per cent to raise money
enough to supply the vacuum created by The dstribu-
ton. Three per cent upon the imported articles in
cluded in the table would produce the Of 1894 1s2
Three per cent. added TO the price of similar articles,
manufactured in this country, would amount to $685.,
| S0S, which added to the former sum, would make
SO 900 $780, that would he taken from the consumer, in
order that 1894 s2 might be raised for the Treasury
In other words, the people would have to pay accord
ing 10 this calculation, little upwards OF 81 40, in
consequence Of the increased duty, for every dollar
which would be brought into the State Treasury, under
The Distribution law and the costs of collection, the
increased mercantile profits which viii be charged in
consequence Of the greater capital which must be en-
ployed, when the price of goods is higher, and the
unequal share which the save. holding States receive
under the Distribution law, not yet taken into the
estimate.
In answer to this view of The subject it will be said,
admit TO be true that the received into the Trea
sury, will be disproportionate the tax upon the
sumner, yet, the manufacturer will be benefited to the
extent of the difference, loss will be sustained by
the community at large
Suppose i! true, that the manufacturer would
be benefited to the extent that the agricuurst would
be taxed, yet he would ask, if it right to tax
branch Of industry for the benefit Of another' More
particularly, would he ask, if il right TO tax
portion of the country for the benefit of another and
above al he would ask Virgnans, fthey prepared
10 themselves the dement, oil Northern ana
ma nufactories. 1t would be wrong, if these manufac
tories equally distributed through every part
of the country but it is doubly So when is notorious
that such is not the case. Let there be mistake
this point He aware, that many supposed that the
dlsproporton between the number of manufactures,
which benefited by Tariff Of protection, ia the
South and the North is not very great. We have in
Virginia, for instance few cotton factories which are
matter OF curiosity to the community, and for that rea
SON are visited by almost every body It's very natu
YoI ~ 1ht aon(1
should be overrated He had made some calculations
based upon the late census the result Of which he would
present to the House. In Massachusetts there
o7,o37 persons engaged in agriculture and So,l76 in
manufactures and trades-about an equal number in
each pursuit In Rhode Island there l6 CPS
gagged in agriculture and 81 900 in manufactures and
trades; being than fourth engaged the
latter pursuit than the former. In Virginia there
3lo7l engaged in agriculture, and 81 476 in manpfac
lures and trades-upwards Of Ia 70 one And it must
be borne in mind that those engaged in manufactures
and trades in Virginia not Of that class which
benefited bya Tariff of protection They are princ-
pay joners, Smiths shoemakers, &c, whose interest as
far Tariff goes is identical with the agriculturis
their pursuit not nterfered with by foreign compe
ton, they themselves the consumers Of the ia
brcs of the manufactures That they Of this Glass;
is shown by the fact, that in Eastern Virginia, where
cotton manufactures exist, there are 222,S21
gagged in agriculture, and only 1900 in manufactures
and trades-upwards of As to whereas in Western
Virginia where there scarcely any manufacturing
establishments there 9 "a. engaged in agriculture
and is 616 manufactures and trades-not quite for
He had extended the calculation TO the entire manufac,
turing district, comprising Massachusetts, Rhode Island
Connecticut, the Southern district Of New York. New
Jersey and East aud he found that there
were little upwards of two engaged in agriculture 10
one engaged in manufactures and trades. Whereas,
in the staple States, comprising Virginia, North Caro-.
lima, South Carolina, Georgi1, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Arkansas there Is 99I 90 -
gagged in agriculture for every engaged in manufac
lures and trades And doubtless, those engaged in the
latter pursuits were principally of the class Of joners,
smiths, &C., who not benefited By Tariff of pro:ec
far he had gone The supposition, that the
benefited to the extent that the
sumers taxed. If this true, It would be bad
enough But it is not true. On the contrary the be-
neit accruing to the manufacturer is by means IN
the ratio of the tax on the consumer The fact, which
lies at the very foundation Of the protective policy,
that manufacturers cannot afford produce fabrics
at price, at which they be sold in markets ny
foreigners Hence II is insisted thaa duty shall be laid
upon foreign fabrics, which, by increasing the price Of
them, will enable manufacturers to compete with
them in our market. He would illustrate this view. Sup
pose the British manufacturer could SELL in market,
yard of cloth 81; but the manufacturer 10 this
try produce it for less than 81 TO- of course, the
English article will drive the domestic from The
market. But 10 enable the Eastern manufacturer 10
make profit of 10 per cent, and to compete with the
British manufacturer, the Government leves upon the
fabrics of the latter d.ty of % per cent Does not
the House perceive that the consumer pays ~ CENT
whereas the manufacturer is only benefited TO the
tent of 10 per cent, 1t is thus manifest, that under
this protective policy the consumer is taxed to greater
extent than the manufacturer is benefited; and of
course, there is a clear loss to the country.
But, it is said, that the incidental effects OF en-
coura ging our manufactures will more than compen.
safe for all this II is said by encouraging them,
raise up home market for cotton and bread Stuff
And il is urged that the and wheatgrower of East
ern Virginia is particularly interested in the Tariff po.
icy, it will create at home market for produce,
which is denied us in England. He would demonstrate
he fallacy of this view Of the subject, by
% facts and arguments, which would defy refataon.
In the first place. be would lay down the position, that
% the extent you created a home market for these
rtces you cut off the foreign market If we do not
import from abroad, foreigners cannot purchase from
IS If our market is supplied with fabrics from our