The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-08-16


may be admitted on The same terms, whether your
duty be ad valorem or specific, as those OF other
nations. We ask that you shall not encourage the
industry of other nations, 10 our prejudice; and we
ask this, NOT matter OF taror, but as due TO us Of
right under our erisiing treaty. And here the under
signed repeats the inquiry, What answer is given
10 our reasonable demandi In the letter Of Mr..
Maurque of February H. above referred to, the fol-
lowing answer is given:
Mr.. Maurique says: "Although, amongst the pro-
ductons of the United States that are consumed
IN this country, 1t may appear that certain prod
ucs are heavily taxed for the sake Of that protection
which our interior industry demands; still there are
other articles Of first necessity to our population,
rice, corn and pulse, which, although they are pro-
duced in this country nevertheless admitted free
of duty; and hence Mr.. Ellis will see an equivocal
proof of what has been said above, of the spirit of
lmpartialty which presided over the establishment
in l84, of the existing tariff Of duties on importa-
tons"
The undersigned understands the substance of
this answer be-frst, that certain products of the
United States (ncluding four are heavily taxed for
the sake of protecting the interior industry Of the
country; and, second, that an equivalent is given
to the United States for this heavy duty on flour,
&C., by admitting corn, rice, and pulse free of
duty.
Ii is the purpose Of the undersigned to afford to
your excellency, and to this government, the full
benefit of these two positions, propded they are well
founded; and he will therefore proceed to consider
them And, first, Of protection to the interior indus
try of the country by the heavy duty on flour.
On this point the undersigned has first TO state,
that, after making the most diligent and extensive
inquiry, he cannot learn that barrel of Venezue
Ian -four ever reached La Guayra or Caracas. He
has, however, learned that, under the momentary
excitement produced few years since by the i'm
position of eight dollars per barrel duty on this arti-
Gle, few planters engaged in the culture of wheat
in this and the adjoining provinces, and were ut
terly and irretrievably ruined, might have been
anticipated, by this abortive and ridiculous attempt
Is it seriously commended that the culture Of
wheat and the manufacture Of -four in Venezuela
are promoted by the duty now imposed on -FOUR
Will MIR. Maurique seriously affirm that if the du-
ty on -four increased to 300 per cent, bar
relof Venezuelan flour would reach Caracas in %
years! Meier, whilst the soil of this and the ada
cent provinces will produce coffee, cocoa, indigo
&c; or, certainly not until the facility of good
roads to the distant interior shall cause other
of transportation 10 be adopted, in the place of
mules and burros! And even then, SHOULD that
time ever come, the idea of substituting the culture
of wheat, in any part of this country for the cul
ture Of the valuable and less bulky articles
ferred to, would be, in the judgment OF the under
signed, serious reflection upon the intelligence of
this people. The undersigned cannot believe it was
the intention of Mr.. Maurique to advance this idea,
although such is the natural construction of his Ian
guage. Ii may, with confidence, be assumed, that
your agrculturists know too well their true interests
to engage in the culture of wheat TO the neglect of
those products for which this soil and climate
better adapted, TO which your whole population are
accustomed, and for which, in exchange, the COM
modties of the world are at their command.
Admitting now, as the undersigned frankly adj
mitted in his first communication, the undoubted
right of Venezuela 10 protect its own interior indus
try IN the arrangement OF its scale of duties, he is
justified in assuming that -four is not one of those
articles which fall within the principle of "home
projections" but that on the contrary, the true in
terests prosperity, and comfort of this people would
be advanced by reducing the duties on this article,
as well as upon lard, soap, butter, hams, and some
other North American articles, not advantageously
produced in Venezuela. Indeed, if the interior in
dustry of this country had demanded high pro-
tective duty on four the proposition submitted by
Mr.. Amanda to Mr.. Hall, in lS43, would hardly
have been made. Or, if the present duty of about
100 per cent. on -four protects the interior industry
OF the country, is strange that those ruined
who cultivated wheat when the duty twice as
high; and equally strange that, undera protective
III, no one has seen the protected article! The UNI
dersigned here concludes that he has misconstrued
the language OF Mr.. Maurque; or else that, by in
adperience, the article Of flour cassed amongst
those on which Mr.. Maurique thinks tile "interior"
industry Of the country demands protective duty.
In concluding his observations on this point, the
undersigned will remark that, if it be that the
present duty -four placed thereon for sake of
protection, the object has not been accomplished,
and never can be- for the reasons indicated; and Of
course, the policy of protection, it regards this
article, should be abandoned, by removal of the
duty. And he may add, that If this be NOT an arti-
Gle falling within the principle of protection, there
can be pretext for the continuance Of the present
onerous duty upon it.
The other position assumed by Mr.. Maurique in
his answer of February 18th, to my communication
of January 10Th, is
'That an equivalent for burdening -four, &C.,
with heavy duties, is in effect given to the United
States in the admission of corn, rice, and pulse,
free of duty"
This is the substance of Mr.. Maurique's position
and argument
Mr.. Maurque attaches very great importance to
the fact, that corn, rice, and pulse admitted into
this country free of duty urging that those articles
produced in the country, but they are neverhe-
less admitted free Of duty; and hence Che says) Mr..
Ellis Will see an uneqnivocal proof of the spirit Of
impartiaity that presided the establishment of
the present tariff Of duties" &c.
The undersigned regrets that he cannot easily
find language in which to comment on this position,
which will express his views with sufficient force
and spirit, and at the same time manifest towards
Mr.. Maurique that high regard which he enter
tains for his public and private character Plausi-
BILE as this argument nnexamined seems to be, it
will be found, upon investigation, that the axemp-
ton of corn, rice, and pulse from duty, makes not
the slightest approach 10 equivalent for the imposi
ton of the unjust and grievous duty on flour.
The undersigned would fain hope that he is not
Justly obnoxious to the imputation Of having lit
tie industry as to be unwilling to investigate, or so
little intelligence as to be unable to comprehend
those statistical reports of this government which
exhibit the separate values of the different articles
imported from other Nations and which reports fur
nish irrefutable proof of the unsoundness of Mr..
Maurigue's position But if it were true that such
an equivalent is thus given the United States it
would prove utter disregard by this government
of the very principle of home protection which Mr.
Maurique assumes forms the basis ofits tariff regu-
latons; because, as has been most concusivcly
shown the culture of wheat is not, and isA not be-
promoted by the present duty on -four, whilst the
admission free Of duty of corn, rice and pulse which
are, in truth advantageously produced, if this adj
mission free amounts to the assumed equivalent
must seriously affect the interior industry Of this
country, by essening the production Of these arti
cles mere.
But, on this point, it is impossible there can be
two opinions for the fact is too plain to admit of
discussion that such eq,tiraleni as Mr. Maurique
has intimaied is given to The United States by the
admission of rio and Y,pieo FREE AZ dut