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

- Il
We commence to-day the insertion Of Mr..
GARsErTs luminous and powerful work, and
shall continue until We have completed it. Vein
yite all our readers to make it study: for moth
ing has appeared for a long time that throws
more light on the nature and results Of our sys-
tenn Of government. II has already passed
through several editions, and the wider it circu-
lates the wider extends the desire TO see it,
The essay has at length been attacked in
HUST's Merchants Magazine, by Mr.. DERBY of
Massachusetts, writer of decided ability. We.
intend to examine someof his positions, but shall
not pretend to embark in general defence of
Mr.. GARKETT's views, rs we trust he will
have the will, since he has the ability so amply,
to yindicate them. osaat tx s.. .as .s3
h Mr.. GARRETT is member of the Virginia
Convention now in session, and is one Of those
on whom the mantle of her statesmen and phi
losophers has descended. .5.s >.,M g.. as
Taxation is perhaps the most complex and
important department of politics. 1t was not
well understood by the trainers of our Consti-
tuition. They provided that duties should be
uniform, that they should lie tile same in the seve-
raj ports of the Union, but seem to have not con-
sidered that if they were unequal as to different
articles, the effeetwould be the same on different
ports where the consumption differed, as if the
duties were not uniform as to ports. For IN
stance, a warm climate consumes more cottons,
and cold one moro woolleas II duties were
heavy on cottons and light on woollens, it would
he the same as to levy high rate of duties in
Southern and low rate in Northern ports. .@'
The trainers of the Constitution designed and
declared that taxation should be equal - of
course this is essential But it is oflittle conse-
quence if disbursement is not also equal. The
effect of unequal disbursement is precisely the
same as unequal taxation, and yet the Constitu-
ton which insists on one, is silent us to the
other. .....u. ....
Mr.. GARNETT takes the ground that the taxes
of the Union have been paid chiefly by the
South, SIEGE they are derived from imports, and
Imports result from exports, which have been
chiefly furnished by the South Mr.. DERBY de-
nes this proposition in one place, but aflirms it
in another. He says that the duties are paid by
the consumer. , But then where he is discussing
the effect of dissolution of the Union, he says
the Northern States would levy duty on the
Southern cotton and sugar they consumed, and
thereby tax the planters to the extent of that
duty! ............ ..... ,.....
Ii, however, the doctrine is true that the con-
r,nys fl,a Hpf,, x,hxr 10,
aiming to obtain reductions of duty on our en-
ports to foreign States (! To say that this is to
increase their consumption, is only to evade a
conclusion by change of words.
But Mr.. DERBY would really seem to assert
that the South has not only not the chief inter-
est in imports, but very little interest in them.
He says:
"Take a case in point. A New England ship
sails for Charleston with a cargo of granite, ice,
fish, and manufactures. She exchanges them
for lumber, rice, and cotton. She then sails for
Liverpool, makes freight and profit then to
Cardiff, where the proceeds are invested in slate
or iron, and returns to Boston. What has the
| South to do with these imports! They have
been bought by the North and paid for-how
do "they belong to-" and how are they ITO be
divided among the producers of the exports?'
We answer. The value of cotton and rice is
affected by the consumption in this country OF
foreign goods, for which rice and cotton are ex-
changed, or into which they are converted. That
consumption is diminished by the increased price
resulting from duties. And diminished con-
sumption reduces prices of the article consumed
where it is made, and consequently of the ma
terials of which it is made Hence the price at
Liverpool or Manchester of raw cotton being
lessened, it is reduced at Charleston. And there.
fore the man from New England gets more of it
for a certain quantity of granite, ice, fish, Or
manufactures. And whatever he gets more than
he would get if the consumption of cotton IA
brics were not reduced by law, is the tax inn
posed on the producer of cotton-and no such
tax is inflicted on the New England man.
In a number of the Federalist, Mr.. HAMn-
TON holds that the consumer generally pays the
duty, but when the market is glutted, it falls
more or less on the producer. The market gen.
orally is glutted. And whether it is or not, the
consumption is inevitably restricted by duties,
the demand is therefore less, and the price to the
producer is less, and therefore he is taxed. It
is clear therefore, Mr.. DERBY is mistaken. But
we do not agree entirely with Mr.. GARRETT.
He holds the South is taxed in proportion to her
share of the imports. We don't think that is the
only criterion. The burthen varies both relatively
as to the North, and to herself with circumstances
But the disproportion is probably greater than
Mr. GARRETT contends for. He estimates the
loss Of the South by the amount Of the tax--we
BY sum Of which the lax would be the interest
Suppose the South has a hundred millions of
capital, which before the law inervenes, p oduces
six millions of income By the operation ofthe
law, that income is reduced to five. The hun
dred millions of property is at once reduced one
sixth or sixteen millions and two-thrds. This
loss is instantaneous, aud the loss the South &C.
a. =,