Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-04-23

paper III
From these comparisons he was forced TO conclude,
that these duties Ind had the Influence upon the trade
in the articles, which the excessive rates would nd'-
cate, and had proved 10 be prohohory much oeyohu
their revenue power.
Mr. WRIGHT then considered the influence upon
each of tho great interests of manufactures, commerce
aud agriculture, Of such prohibtory, compared with
properly arranged revenue duties
He contended that even manufactures would be more
benefited by such incidental protection properly
discriminating revenue duties would affOrd than By
such prohibory duties would break up and destroy
lrade The former would afford stable protection, be-
cause the wants of the Treasury would always be about
the SANE II would afford that protection without just
ground of COMPLAINT any interest," because the Tea.
su;y must be supplied by taxes of Sort and these
would be more ptabe to the whole country than any
other On the contrary, prohibtorY duties taxed all,
and did not supply the Treasury They were destruc-
tive of revenue and therefore were matter OF COM
plaint to all who were not benefited by Them and,
soeokrs in reference to the whole country few in the
comparison could be benefited by any pohbory duty,
while all were taxed for the benefit Of that few Hence,
such system could never be stable because the ma
orty OF the country could never be content under IT,
The revenue system, and the Incidental protection to
be afforded by it. would be stable, because the taxes
would be for revenue-hecause the revenue would al
yavs be reouiredund because the changes IN it could
never be extensive to produce great fluctuations
and changes oil interest
fIc said il was point Of great dispute, who in fact
paid the duty imposed upon an article OF foreign ma
nuac,ure whether the foreign producer or the domes
tic consumer. 1t point he had never attempted
n discuss, nor did he then intend discuss it, bnt he
desired to present two illustrations, and TO make
the enquiries suggested by them, to show his own I'M
press,ons and TO elicit information as to their correct
ness from those better acquainted with the subject
than himself.
He would suppose for the sake ofhs illustration, that
our trade was last year perfectly free there being no
duties whatever upon imports; and that A. b mer-
chant of New York, imported $4,000 yards of cloths
costing him in England 100000, which he sold out
in the New York market, that the sale of these cloths
below the manufacturing prices of the country, had IN
duced the manufacturers Of wool in this country to
come to Congress and ask protection against this En-
rl.sh competitions that Congress had passed law impo-
sing duty f25 per upon all English cloths, such as
the ~ Y merchant imported free OF duty; That Inc nef
chant this year returns to Liverpool goes TO the same
and desires to purchase exactly The sane
amour, and description of cloths, but tells the manu-
fac,urer lie cannot pay but $75O00 Tor Inc oo.ooo
yards this year. because there home duty OF 2ooOo
which he will be compelled 10 pay before lie can offer
the cloths in the home market; that the Enensn manu-
actprer plies: Very we'll, must sell you the clots
we cannot be driven out Of your market-ano II
you cannot pny US the $4,000 you must have me
cloths for 00O that the merchant takes the oo,OU0
yards of CLOTH pays the $4,000 purchase money re-
turns TO New York, pays at the custom-house thefe
~
sale The foreign producer has paid the duty, and 1t
does not remain 10 be paid by him, or by his customer
How can he afford 10 sell these cloths, compared with
his sales of the last year, Can he not sell them a. the
same prices They cost him exactly the same, "hen
ready for sale in markets. and he can, oil course,
sell them ut the same rates. IL, then, our mnnuiacu
re Of woolen cloths protected Is he made better by
the duty .
MIR. Wright here took view of the other side OF
this question. fe said he would assume that the con-
SINNER this country, and not the manufacturer IN
England, in the supposed case, must pay me du
y upon the cloths that the merchant paid IN England
500 600 for them, as last year, and in addition PAID
at the house in New York, the S25 900 oil dues
that he offers the cloths for sale in market TINS year.
at $685. 00 having sold them last year al sluo,oOo
and that he this year finds purchasers at the enhanced
price And he would ask, IN this case, what To nm
der the same English manufacturer from sending the
cloths here as well with without the duty: 1t the
price Of the cloths is raised IN market that he
can sell for Sl2 900 what he asks but 100000 Tor, he
can nav The S25 900 Of duties and lose nothing Is,
then the manufacturer in this country protected
From the competition he is not; but TO the extent that
he can sell at the enhanced prices he s because he is
compelled pay part Of the money he receives to
the custom house He must sell below the SIPS 600 to
avail himself of the protection, and take the market
from his English competitor but all he can get above
the 500 900 the protection duty affords 10 HIM,
and is also tax upon our consumer occasoned oy
our law imposing the duty.
Mr. Wright asked if il was not then clear, that the
duty could moi be efectual protection to our manu-
facturer any farther than it raised The price of his
manufactured articles in on, own markets? And II 1t
was not as clear that to that extent it tax upon
the consumer OF the article in this country These
two points appeared to him to be ndsputable and yet
did not follow that the price must be raised 10 the ex
tent of the duty. 1t rather appeared 10 him that II
would be the interest of manufacturer to sell below
that point because, at it, the foreigner could compete
with him without loss; and he might be compelled to
sell as far below it, the foreigner would consent to
become the payer Of the duty Still appeared clear to
his mind, that if the foreigner would consent TO pay
the whole duty there would be, in effect projections;
and that the actual protection 10 the domestic interest
was be measured by the advance in price occasoned
by the duty.
This state of things, he said, would Of course be
only applicable when there trade; because, under
system Of prohibilory duties which destroyed the
trade in any article of import, domestic competition
alone mus, the advance Of price in markets,
and consequently the tax upon the domestic consumers
and the public treasury would get nothing.
Mr. Wright then stated that he thought that duty
of from % 10 80 SO per cent. much as most
manufactured articles would bear, without diminu-