Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1844-05-09

replies, Very well, we must sell you the
cloths. we cannot be driven out of your
market, and if you cannot. pay US the
$lOO,O Co., you must have the cloths for
8 200; that the merchant takes the
5000 yards of cloth. pays at the Gus
courthouse there the $25, 900 duty, and
places the cloths in his store for the sale
The foreign producer has paid the duty,
and it:does not remain to be paid by him
or by his customer. How can he afford
to sell these cloths. compared with tie
sales OF the last year? Can he not sci!
them at the same prices2 They cost
him exactly the same, when ready for
safe IN our mari cts, and he can of course
sell them at the same rates. Is then
our manufacturer of wooden clothes pro-
tected? Is he made better by the duty?
Mr.. Wright here took a view of the
other side Of this question. He said he
would assume that. the consumer in this
country, and not the manufacturer in
England, in the same supposed case,
must pay the duty on the cloths; that the
merchant paid, in England, the $780,
900 for them, as last year, addition paid
at the custom-house in New York, the
$25, 600 of duties; that he offers the
cloths for sale in our market this year at
$l25 200, having sold them last year at
500, 600; and that lie, this year, finds
purchasers at the enhanced price. And
he would ask, in this case. what is TO him
der the same English manufacturer from
sending the cloths here as well with as
without the duty? If the price of the
cloths is so raised in our market that he
can sell for 1925, 900 what he asks but
500, 900 for, he can pay The $2j ,OOG
OF duties, and lose nothing. Is, then,
the manufacturer in this country protec-
ted? From the competition he is not;
but to the extent that he can sell at the
enhanced prices he is, because he is
compelled to pay no part of the money
he receives to the custom-house. He
must sell below the 1925 900, to avail
himself of the protection, and take the
market from his English competitor; but
all he can get above the 500, 1000 is the
protection our duty affords to him, and
1t is also tax upon our consumer, by
our aw imposing the duty.
Mr. Wright asked if it was not then
clear that the duty could not be effectual
as protection to our manufacturer, any
farther than it raised the price of his
manufactured articles IN our own mar
kets? And if it was not as clear that, OF
that extent, it was a tax upon the consul
mer of the article in this country?-
Ihsfe two points appeared to him to be
IndlsputabIe, and yet it did not fol-
low that the price Tust be raised TO the
extent of the duty. 1t rather appeared
to him that it would be the interest of
our manufacturer to sell below that point,
because,a it, the foreigner could compete
with him without loss; and Re might be
compelled to sell as far below It as the fo-
reigner would consent to pay the whole
duty, there would be, in effect; no pro-
lection; and that the actual protection
to the domestic interest was to be meas
ured by the advance in price occasioned
by the duty.
This state Of things, he said, would of
course be only applicable when there
Vpo ~ aux OCCduoSs uiGCI SEOlGih VI
prohibitory duties which destroyed the
trade in any article of import, domestic
competition alone must measure the ad-
vance of price in our markets, ard con-
sequently the tax upon the domestic con-
sumers; and the public treasury would
get nothing.
Mr.. Wright then stated that he
thought that duty of from 25 to so, or
33 per cent. was as much as most manu-
featured articles would bear, without
diminution Of revenue, and Of course a
violation Of the revenue, principle. He
was led to adopt this conclusion from his
examination Of the import tables, and
the comparisons he had presented. He
thought SO per cent, which, with char
ges, &c. was practically equal to about
35, was as high as it would do to carry
the rates Upon most of the protected ar.
ticles. He though It would be sufficient
protection upon most of them. There
might be some exceptions. There were
some articles which had borne EXCEEDING.
ly high duties, without falling of in the
trade in proportion to the increase Of the
revenue. Sugar was, perhaps, the most
prominent among these articles. Yet
that duty was cow manifestiy too high
for the safety of the revenue Iron was
another article which had sustained a high
rate OF duty; but the comparisons show
that the rates under the present law were
beyond the revenue point. These arti-
cles might require, and might bear, du-
ties higher than 20, or IS per cent.
MIR. Wright then briefly examined the
influences of these probibtory duties u
pom commerce, and showed that they
must be deeply injurious to it. lie said
this interest Of all others, required sta
biIity; that the Influence OF any sys-
TEN of duties upon imports was more ~
rect upon it than upon any other inter