The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-04-14

leave untouched the inference which the pam
phlet draws from many facts that there IL
a general disposition at the North, TO look 70
federal expenditures means OF support
But Mr. Derbys table Of the Revolutionary sol
ders, and Of the white population in 1870, Is en-
tlrely erroneous. | do not refer only 10 the
number OF the latter, which he puts al l2S'4o3'
or rather more than per cent less than the cen
sus shows; but the numbers OF soldiers sup
piled by the several States are wrong. Inc re-
viewer would have escaped this error II he would
have gone to the original authority, General
Knox's we'll known report to the first Congress,
instead Of "Mr McCulloch's valuable Gazet-
teer." Whoever will compare the data Of that
report with the census, will find the statements
Of the pamphlet on this subject strictly correct.
Finally, on the question OF disbursements,
MIR. Derby says, that the pamphlet complains that
Northern men have been the chief owners OF the
public debt, and have thus received large sums
from the public. The pamphlet makes no such
complaint it simply notices the fact and charges
that the South has paid more than her just
share in fact much the larger share-over four
fifths--of this debt, and that such tax upon
her capital has aided TO transfer the command OF
her own commerce to the North. And this
brings us to one of the chief questions in issue
pays the customs duties, which have constituted
} some ten-eevenths of the federal revenues to
this time, being indeed the only source of any
, importance except the public lands. Before
, proceeding, let me remark that according to the
pamphlet, the whole amount levied from GUS
toms has been about Sl,047, 100000, of which
the South has paid S798,000,000. MIR. Derby
seems to imagine tht this $79S,000,000 is made
5 up of $7ll 100000 from duties, $7S,000,000
from public lands and sundries, 100000. A
, little attention to what he was reviewing would
have shown him (see table b. of pamphlet, PIP.
5 ard l8) that this $7l 100000 is only the
part of the duties paid by the South up to 1916,
when the total was 1927 900, 900, and that the
) numbers ST. ,047,0OO,000 and $798,000000, are
only the total duties and the Southern share
estimated four years later, as the official returns
were not at hand to complete the calculation to
e that time with entire precision But let us re-
turn to the argument
Mr. Derby assumes that the theory of the
1 pamphlet is that the South supplies nearly two
thirds of the EXPORTS and that the duties on the
f imports, which are the proceeds of the exports,
: are therefore paid, not by the consumer, but
, by the South" But he mistakes the position
. the pamphlet, which is, that the duties are paid,
i partly by the producer and partly by the con-
e sumer; that so far as the latter pays them, he
G pays three or four times as much more in the
: increased price of similar goods of domestic
d manufacture, and SO far the former pays
$ them. he loses more, often vastly more, in the
: value of all that part of his produce sold at
o home, which must be lowered to the exact level
j. of the value of what is sold abroad. Hence, the
If mere nominal amount of duties paid to the
j federal government is the least part of the real
}, burden of the South, whether we consider her
8 as the producer of the exports or co lsumer OF
t, the return imports, (p. I'D But as the author
z, of the pamphlet wished not only to be as mod
crate as possible in his calculations but to avoid
d principles in controversy between the political
parties, he assumed that the duties are paid by
| the producers, and the several sections, in the
IS ratio Of their produce exported" and he con
J. tends that this is fair measure OF the tax OF
each section, or rather that it makes paid by the
/ South far less than it really is. But Mr.. Derby
l. denies this, and he assumes what the protection
9 ist party has ever disputed, and the free traders
IT affirmed, that " the duties are paid by the con
" sumner, who eventually pays for the imports,
e. (p. 374)
10 Let us admit the truth of this theory, and ex
n anime its effect upon the question of the Incl
2 dence of the duties as between tire sections. |
ID the consumer pays the duty, it olny be whel
g. the duty is added to the price of the import
N but, :" if the import is enhanced in price by tn
t duty, so must be its domestic rival, for being
" like articles their price must be the samen tn,
@ same market" walkers Report) Other
Y wise, the domestic article being cheaper would
It entirely expel the import from the market. Thi.
n is so plain a consequence from the hypothesis
= that the consumer pays the duty, that it need,
!. no further argument Hence the consumer moi
s only pays all the duties into the federal treasury
v but he must pay to the domestic manufacture
h of articles similar to the imports, very large
n sum in the enhanced price of their goods.
A. readily agree that this falls as heavily on thS
ne individual Northern consumer, in proportion tC
his consumption, as on the Southern. Blu
-, hitherto, the great bulk of domestic manufac
u lures has been at the North, and if the consumc
there had to pay an increased price for them, i
n was only transfer of property from one elias,
70 of Northern men to another; it left the North
sc as a section, where it before The etfec
a on the South was very different for the en-
~ hancement of price paid by her consumers went
- not into the hands of another class of her owl
. citizens, but into the pockets of the Northern
- manufacturers. It was paid by her, as section
% to the North. Hence, while the latter sector
:. parted with only the duties she actually paid t.
;. government, the South was really paying duties
: either directly to the Treasury, or IT, the shap,
- of increased prices, to the manufacturers, on he
whole consumption of domestic goods and for
- eign imports. In 1916, the duties levied OF
!, sixteen articles alone were SlS,336,452 anC
70 Mr. Walker clearly proved that the tax paid b,
!, :, the enhancement of the prices of the similar
!, domestic articles was S75,7Si, 405, equal to no
y quite three times the whole revenue from Gus
= toms, and the total ncresse in the prices of al
- protected articles was probably four times tn,
entire duties paid to the government. (See Al
l. Sen. Doc, lS45-6) Therefore, if we assum,
d with Mr.. Derby, that the South consumes only
T. three.teuths of the imports, and pays a like pro
n portion of the duties, it still follows that sh,
s. pays at least three times as much more, or
'r sum exceeding nine-te tbs of the whole Gus
e toms, in increased prices to Northern manufac
IL turers Hence, to put ten dollars into the trea
II sury, the North may pay SEVEN according tC
3 Mr. Derby and the South only three; but tn,
e North receives all her share back in federal ex
u pendtures, and the South has to pay nine dol
D. lars more to Northern manufacturers, and o
IS the whole twelve, only two spent in he