The Arkansas banner., 1844-03-06
 { Concluded from first page. J


 and betrayed by it, ts many patrio'-sold'ers
 have been by tine holding out of false co'o's
 -an idea has obtained currency, thai a'''io
 won cannot impose duties for any o'"e' p,'.-
 pose but that of revenue, yet you may r's,i'-
 fully impose revenue duties, ""i',i a ~fSe
 diserimination. for the proieciion ot domes-
 fir manufactnres Sir, this IS part of the
 noyr s,-sta,o of tactics to which the manulac-
 ,prers have found ii necessary to resort
 Tbev say one thing and mean ano,her,-
 What do they mean by ga arisc discrimina- tion:n Obviously discrimination that will exclude imports, and diminish revenue. IA
 cise discrimination n' Pray what is your whole system of revenue levied, as 1t Is eX- clusively from duties on i,nposts-but an enormous discrimination in favor of the ma nuiacters and their eontederales, and against all other classes
 A duty of 20 per cent. on foreign imports, while no corresponding duty is imposed up- on the domestic manufactures with which the foreign come in competition, would be the most unequal system oftaxation that ex- ists in the whole civilized world, even if all
 protective duties were repealed. Yet we
 have made up our minds to submit 10 this
 system of unequal taxation, by which the
 whole manufacturing interests IS not only
 excepted from taxes, but receives enormous
 bounties, by means of the duties imposed for revenue. And it is in the face of all this that statesmen gravely talk of revenue duties, with wise discrimination in favor of do- nestle manufactures! now propose to ex- plain my view of ga wise discrimination
 It seems to be a very prevailing idea, that the South insists upon the system of horizontal duties. Now, sir, this is very great mis- take. For myself, insist that discrimira- tlons are proper and necessary, with refer ence strictly to considerations of revenue.- In my opinion, two kinds of discrimination belong properly to our system of revenue.- The first is to impose the highest rates of duties upon those imports which will yield a given amount of revenue with the least burden to the people. The second is, to impose the highest rate of duties upon art- cles consumed by the wealthy, and the low est upon those consumed by the poor.-- Now, sir, the simple application of those two principles-the justice and policy of which would seen. to be almost elf-evident-would reverse the whole system of your legislation on this subject. For, whereas, you lay q duty of l50 per cent. on coarse fabrics, and only 30 per cent on the finer qualities, l would impose a duty of 25 per cent. on the more costly fabric. and only l5 upon the in- ferior qualities. This would be discrimin- ation that would increase revenue, and al the same time diminish the burdens of the GOT instead of increasing the bountics of the rich
 The other kind of discrimination, having m view the largest revenue with the least burden, requires that a lower rate of duty should be imposed upon imported commod- itles which come in competition with domes- tic manufactures, than upon articles the like of which are not produced in the United States. Fine silks, fine muslns, tea and cof- fee, are commodities not produced in the United States. If you impose duty of 20 per cent. on twenty millions of these imports, Il will yield a revenue of S4,000,000, and impose just that burden and no more, upon the people. But if you impose duty of 20 per cent. OH twenty millions of cotton man. ufacturcs. you raise the same amount ($4,- Q00,OO0) of revenue, and impose burden of Sl2,0OO,OOO on the people. This results from the fact that for every dollars worth of you import, there are two dol lars worth of domestic manufactures of which the price is enhanced 20 per cent. by the duties imposed upon the foreign. All this would occur under mere revenue sys- tenn of duties. It will be perceived, then, tha, revenue of S4,000,000 raised by du- ties on fine silks, muslins, tea and coffee, would pruduce only one-third of the burden ntx,h .r revenue saised by duties on cotton manufac- tures
 Ihele IS another reason for this discrimin- atlon on revenue principles. A lower rate of duty will exclude imports of cotton manu- Iactures, for which we have domestic substi- tutes, than will be required to exclude im- ports for which we have no substitutes. A duty of 40 per cent would produce more re- venue than 20, on fine silks, musins, tea and coffee; but not half so much on the coarser cotton manufactures. So much for ''wisc 
 now beg leave to present an estimate which have made, from most careful ex- animation of statistical returns, furnished by the manufacturers themselves to the officers who took the census of lS40, showing the aggregate burden imposed upon the people of the United States by the protective system, as 1t IS embodied ill the act of lS42 It is now ascertained at the treasury that the du- ty-paying imports under that act, the first year after it's passage amounted to only S40,OOO, ,0O0.
 There are annually made in the United States protected manufactures to the amour, of about l60,000,000. or these, esti- mate that about SS0,00O,0OO are now; and long have been. totally prohibited by high protective duties, and there is no standard for estimating the burden imposed upon the peo- pie of the U. s. which have excluded them. | l assume however, that S80,000,O00 of these manufactures come in competition with foreign imports.
 The forty millions of imports, assuming duties to average 40 per cent, will yield revenue of s l6,000,OOO; while eighty mil lions of domestic manufactures, with which the foreign come in competition, are of course enhanced in price 40 per cent by the import 0ufIes. What fheu tho k,,~<to,,