The Port-Gibson correspondent., 1844-05-04
THE HERALD AND TIE TARIFF

nIeseiy nailed to the cross inat W oou's
no, kick, but % opening the last llefalo
sge find that he still clings 70 life win
the .euacity Of dying and desperate.
man. -
We made 4 charge that the whlg saf'n
il i,s gross injustice and barefaeed IN.
fairness assessed a.duiy Of goo per cent
on co,,on goods. The Herald replied to
this charge by asserting .baf no article
Of cotton goods paid higher duty than
soper cent, and adduced several clauses
% proye his assertion. Unfortunately
g2r him, and we presume, 10 justice ! %
the editor, tha, he did notknow Il, the.
yerycIauses. adducsd by himselftoProye
the ,rnth oil his own charge were fhe
very clauses that established the truth OF
oars.-We took up these clauses and
proved plainly that what we SAID was
true, and so fully satisfied, did the edi.
tor seem that we had nailed him IN this,
tha. he dropped that part Of the contro>
versy, and merged into defence OF the
minimum system, the very systern, the
whig system under which an enormous
duty is levied upon all the accessories.
. 4 =
of life-the very system which when
laid bare, so staggered the editor that
in attempting 10 defend il, he got into
snarl from which he has not, nor do We
intend he shall, extricate himself
The editor clings to his assertion that
goods are not imported, the original cost
of which is not not more than 4 centS
per square yard. 1t matters but li'tle to
us whether they are or not. The wings
presumed they would be or they would
not have yielded to the wishes OF the
Hon Nathan Appleton, and other Manu-
fuc,aring mouopolists, and adopted the
minimum system.
The very declaration Of the wing.
tariff that ''goods worth less than "
cents per yard, whence imported, shall
be valued at 90 cents" implies, nay as
ser,s that such goods would be imported
but for the obstacle offered by the min
mum system. Now.lf they could be I'M.
ported, and arc prohibited by this 1arltf'
the horns OF the dilemma between which
thA 9en,leutan IS TO choose, leaves the
very unpleasant alternative of finding
either bad enough, worse by far than We
asserted. Now our neighbor can take
his choice Of two positions. He y bound
10 confess that many articles Of cotton
goods pay duty Of from one TO two and
n some instances 500 per cent-or not
confessing this he must take The oPpo.
site position that the high whig tariff
prevents the importation of low priced
coods-excludes them from our markets
entirely, because Of the enormous rate
of duty. We are perfectly Indifferent
as TO what system the wings may estab
Iish by which to deceive and cheat the
unsuspecting I've regard one system
As no better than another -if both pro :
duce the same results. The editor in
his lame attempt to defend the minimum
system declares that it was adopted to-
prevent fraud upon the revenue but he
does not tell the people thai in attempts
ing by that system, to prevent fraud up-
on the revenue, that g gross and palpa
Bile fraud is perpetrated upon them.
Nor does he show how fraud upon the
revenue is prevented. He says that iin-
der the old system the agents Of foreign
houses in our country, would frequently
swear falsely as to the cost of an arti-
Gle 10 save duty, and thus get fine cloths
through al very low price. Now un
der the minimum system, despite The
sagacity Of whig Legislators, the agents
can do the same thing and there is no
preventive If q manufacturer exports
cloth 70 this country consigned 70
his agent worth or SB per yard, he
can just as easily swear that its cost
whence irnportedis much less than those
prices, as he could under the old system.
Is their any help other than the fear Of
discovery q punishment By law for per.
jury none under the sun and The sdi
tor well knows il.
Rsst iefs ~ 68...a - -.