Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1844-02-07

t it must be the lowest raIe Of duty, ad va
, lorem, which would yield the necessar.
amount of taxation. Every Senator ornkneH
that any duty, however small, operaled t.
some extent as a prohibition. Twenty
; per cent on Cotton Goods would not yielt
quite as much revenue as any higher ratt
of dnty. If ,ha, rate of duty yields fou
millions, a duty of forty per cent. would
, yield no more; for it will exclude one hal
of The amoun, of goods usually imported
, and impose the duty on the other half.
Both rates Of duty would yield the same
amount of revenue. Many of those arti
Giles paid higher rate of dury than forty
per cent. On caicoes, the duty was forty
seventy, eighty, hundred, hundred and
twenty, and hundred aud eighty per CT
This shows very clearly the true character
Of this law Calico cloths, which were
worn by all the poorer classes of the
whites, and even by every negro slarc-
for every planter gave his slaves at least
one calico gown 10. wear on Sundays
paid such an amount Of duty as to prohibit
them. Calcos costing four cents a yard,
and which could be sold here for five cts.
was by most ingenious device of the
manufacturers, taken aud deemed 10 have
cost thirty ccnls. and duty of thirty per
cent, ad vaorem, was imposed upon that,
making the rate Of duty one hundred and
eighty per cent. So it was with many
other articles. There was class of prints,
good enough to be used in every family,
that cost ten cents, aud under the rule
adopted the rate of duty was ninety per ct.
A large class of cotton goods, amounting
to ten millions in value, was utterly exclu-
ded by this tariff. He also referred TO the
duties on window glass and other articles.
He came now to the question, was this
a revenue tariff? 1.-THE Senate was sat.
isfed that IA duty of twenty per cent.
would yield more revenue than higher
rate ofduty, then they must admit that this
is not q tariff for revenue. 1t is Then a
bill framed, not in accordance with the
Constitution and the principles of ever
lasting justice, but for the purpose Of ia
king money out Of the pockets of one por-
tion Of the people and putting itin the
pockets O.. another portion.
But an idea was gotlen up by which the
friends Of free trade had been, in some
cases deceived-lhaf, though duties must
be imposed for The purpose of revenue
alone, yet, that we could discriminate in
favor Of domestic manufacturers. This
was saying one thing and doing another
looking one way and rowing another. Il
might he employed for giving The whole
law most unjust character. Every rev.
euue law was considered as If il was crea-
ted entirely for the benefit of manufactur-
ers. We make, in my opinion, vast
concession to the manufacturing interest
when we raise the whole amount of rev.
euue from duties on imports alone. We
do what no other country on the face of
The globe does, when we raise our revenue
entirely from that source. But still, gen.
tlemen sravely say, you must protect man
nractures. LIE, me tell them what would
be the true mode of discrimination. He
would admit that discrimination was
proper in one sense. There were two
proper objects Of Discrimination. One was
10 get the proper amount of revenue from
the lowest rate of duty and the other was
to avoid. SO far as possible, the imposition
of duties on articles universally used by
the poorer classes. The application Of
these two rules would alone reverse The
whole system. |, would take the duty off
from calicoes aud put il on muslin. and The
reverse. That was the true discrinina
ton. Poverty ought. as far as possible,
to be exempt from The burthen oftaxaion:
He would begin a. ...e lowest rates, under
the minimum, and come up, increasing the
duties on the more CO. ~ articles.
There was one other discrimination
that he would make, and it would be IN
favor Of the imported article, and against
the article manufactured at home. He
wonld impose the highest rale of duty on
The commodities manufactured in the
United States. If he imposed duty of
thirty per cent. OH the foreign article, he
would impose a higher rate on the article
made a, home. A duty oflwenty per cent
made on cotton fabrics TO The amount Of
ten millions would impose burden of for
ty per cent. on the people of the United
States. If we import twenty millions
worth of cotton, on which the duty is four
millions, we raise the price Of the commod-
ity to the same amount. a duty ofIwen-
iy per cent would give the same revenue
that duty of forty per cent will give; bur
willimpose burden. not offour millions,
hut of eight millions of the consumers.
} He WENT into a variety of illustrations 10
explain his views on this subject.
The duly paying imports were about
forty millions. The amount ofgoods man.
ufaclured here was hundred and sixty
millions, one-half Of which came in COM
petition with fnreiSn imports, and exclu-
, ded them to the amountof eighty millions
The amount imported yielded TO the Treas.
ury about sixteen millions. What is the
burden which the system imposes on The
, people, under the preext of a revenue
law. for raising sixteen millions? /? Wha
: is the amount of bounty paid 10 the manu-
, racturcrs with duty, he would not say O