The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-04-19
THE TARIFF-MR. MeDUFFIE.


THE TARIFF-MR. McDUFFIE.
The Hon. Nathan Appleton has recently pub
lished defence of the Tariff of 1872 which con-
tains number of interesting facts, from auhen-
tic sources that ought to be known to the people,
| who have been msled by the conjectural statis-
tics of Mr.. McDuffie. The latter gentleman. in
the recent debate in the Senate upon that sub
ject, stated, not upon any certain information but
argumentatively that the average annual profits
of manufacturing in Massachusetts, is 35 per
cent? and that the average for the country at large
is about % per cent while he represented the
profits of agriculture to be almost nothing in
comparison. He arrives at this fact in regard to
the profits of manufacturing by supposing what
proportion the raw material bears to the manu-
featured commodity, and by guessing at the price
of labor, the wear and tear of machinery, and the
floating capital necessary. In this way Mr.. Nc
Dufie has demonstrated very clearly that manu-
featuring is very money making business but
he has lost sight of one consideration, which
must be weighed in the scale if we would arrive
at anything like a correct conclusion. He has
forgotten that the manufacturers cannot always
find market for their fabrics, and that much loss
is incurred by the consequent idleness of capt.
tai, damage to goods, and other accidents, which
must be sustained before any dividend takes
place. The dividend alone is the correct critic
ron, and the actual, not the conjectural, dividend
The average profits upon manufacturing in the
United States, where the business is well con-
Quoted, is estimated by Mr.. Appleton at about ten
per cent, in which it seems the editor of the De-
mocratic Evening Post concurs with him. Mr.
A. states that the average profits of the Lowell
cotton mills, for the last seven years, has been
between eight and half and nine per cent. For
the last two years they have been less than six
per cent. He justly argues that the profit is
none too great, considering the risk of SO con-
siderable an investment Of capital.
If we remember correctly, Mr.. McDuffie esti-
mated the profits of agriculture at three and a
half per cent but it seems to us the Hon. gen.
tleman loses sight of a very important fact in his
comparison Of agricultural with manufacturing
profits. Agriculture is invariably carried on by
Individuals who feed and clothe their families,
and improve their farms out of their annual pro-
fits, before they begin to count up what they have
made. When Mr.. McDuffie talks about the pro-
fits of agriculture, he refers to the net profit
which is accumulated over and above the main
tenance of the family, &c. But manufacturing
being generally carried on by chartered compa-
MES, the partners in the concern must live upon
the dividend, which is therefore not net profit.
In reference to Southern agriculture, Mr.. Nc
Dufie loses sight Of another important considera-
ton. The annual increase of the slaves is as
much part of the profits of agriculture as the
cotton or tobacco they produce; and this is true,
whether the annual increase is sold or retained
upon the estate. This annual increase is some
thing more than two per cent, as can be ascer-
tanned from the census tables, where the slaves
are found to increase in ten years twenty five per
cent.-one year at this rate would be two and
half per cent. but this is compound interest, or
an average for a series of years, in which the an
nual yield becomes greater every year. The in
crease for any one year may be set down at two
per cent. Mr. McDuffie should therefore add this
two per cent. to his three and half net profits
and besides, make large allowance for the
maintenance and clothing of the white family of
the agrcultnrist, in order to arrive at Just est.
mate of his profits
-