The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-10-25

sass = {.
Bath also sonsspcndsto TIA gsassd law, thsa III
plandsrsr nevet gains a much a the plundersd
loses. What Is most alarming 10 the steady, and
recently, the rapid increase Ia the relative benefit
and damage to the people of the two sections.
We find that every Southern family lost, in the
first period, per cent. more; in the third, l1per
cent; in the fourth, IT'S per cent; in the fifth,
l9.3per cent; and finally, in l646, as much as 43
per cent. more. This increase has obviously kept
pace with the growth Of the Northern political
power from census TO census.
While the free States have been such large
gamers by the earnings of the shareholders, divert
ed from the hands Of the natural owners by the
fiscal action of the Federal Government uponfor-
eign commerce, they have profted in no smaller
proportion in the adjustment OF taxation. We
cannot calculate the whole burden OF indirect
taxes, but we can reach results which are certain
ly under the relative amount really paid by the
South. When duties are paid upon imports, they
are indisputably paid by somebody-either by the
consumer Of the goods imported, or by the ex-
porter Of the domestic produce, with which those
goods are purchased, and to whom they, in fact,
belong, or partly by both. There can be no fourth
supposition. When the planter, either directly or
through the agency or merchants and factors, ex-
ports his tobacco, his cotton, his rice or bread
stuffs, he receives paymentin foreign goods, which
he must bring back as imports and when he
part Of these returns for duties. 5000
Thus far the tax falls entirely upon him and if
we stop here in reasoning, II is plain that the
duties are paid by the different sections in the
act ratio of the exports of their produce; for it
does not matter that the producer may sell his to-
bacco, cotton, &C.. to some merchant at home, who
afterwards is the actual exporter. The price
which that merchant can give, plainly depends on
what he can sell for again nd that depends upon
theyalue of the imports he has to take in payment
after deducting all expenses and duties, which
must therefore come out ofthe planter at last, just
as if he exported and imported directly. Nor can
the producer escape the duties by taking, in return
for his exports, money, which he does not want,
instead of the goods which he needs for it would
be asking an impossibility to demand nothing but
specie in payment, when the exports Of cotton
alone are considerably more than the whole an
nual produce Of gold and silver in the world. But
the question here is, not what the producer could
do, but what he actually did. Tie records show
that he was really paid for his exports in foreign
goods, and that duties have been paid upon these
to an amount over billion Of dollars |; and this
enormous sum the producer must have paid when
he had 10 surrender part of the value of his i'm
ports to Government as he entered them. There
Is but one way in which he could have escaped,
and that is, by selling the part left for as much as
the whole was worth before, and, by thus raising
the price, throw he.whole tax upon the consumer.
But, in this case, the South must have paid still
greater share ofthe duties than before for not on
ly is she q much larger consumer of foreign mer-
chandize than the North, but if the price of the
imported article is raised, must be the price Of
the similar article Of domestic manufacture. And
the South would pay three or four times as much
in this shape to the Northern manufacturer, as
sheswouid TO Government in the form of duties.
Ii is true that the increased price of domestic
goods would also be paid by the Northern con-
sumer, but with this important difference, that
what was paid would be spent amongst them
selves, and SO, in a nianner, returned to their
pockets, as the factories are scattered through
their country, while, to the South, it would be a
dead loss. This view of the effect of duties has
been pressed by the advocates of free trade, and
rejected by their opponents !, and as we wish to
proceed upon undisputad principles, we shall
adopt the other horn OF the dilemma, and assume
that the duties are paid by the producers, and the
several sections, in the ratio of their produce eS
ported. ,.E ..+.r.l.-. ls a5s5.& agl
This course is also more agreeable to our deter
mination to calculate Southern burdens and North
ern profits at the lowest possible figures for there
can be no doubt that the other view of the Incl.
dence OF duties would at least triple the sun, paid
by the South. At the same time it is proper to
say that in our belief the duties paid partly by
the producer and partly by the consumer; that, SO
far the latter pays them, he pays three or four
times as much more in the increased price of
similar goods of domestic manufacture, and SO far
as the former pays them, he loses more, often
vastly more, in the value of all that part Of his
produce sold al home, which must be lowered to
the exact level Of The value of what is sold abroad.
Hence, the mere nominal amount of duties paid
to the Federal Government is the least part of the
real burden on the South, whether we consider her
as producer Of the exports, or a consumer Of the
return imports. But we shall, nevertheless, con-
fine ourselves to the very moderate principle Of
calculation we set out with, so as to say nothing
that is not absolutely certain. e..
The whole amount Of duties collected from the
year 1871 to June 80, 1S45, after deductng the
drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was
1927 ,050, 097.* OF this sum the slaveholding
States paid $7l1 200 900, and the free States only
S25, is, s50,097. Had the same amount been paid
by thelt sections in the constitutional ratio Of
their federal population, the South would have
paid only 1894, TOT ,9l7, and the North $500 ,342,
100. Therefore, the saveholding States paid
S316, 492 ,083 more than their just share, and the
free States as much less. They were FREE indeed
not only of slaves, but Of taxes! By carrying
our calculation down to 1S49, this sum of 3l6
millions is raised to $50 odd millions. In the fol-
lowing table we may see at glance how this taxa
ton fell on the respective population of the North
and South in each decennial period ".