Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-05-31


that every Southern family lost in the first period
4 per cent more than the Northern gained, by the
monopoly of Southern trade; in the second period,
6.8 per cent. more; in the third / per cent, in
the fourth, 175 per cent. in the fifth, 1873 pei
cent; and finally, in 1848, 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 gain
ers by the earnings of the Shareholders, diverted
from the hands of the natural owners by the fiscal
action of the Federal Government upon foreign
commerce, they have profted in no small proper
ton IN the adjustment of taxation. We cannot
calculate the whole burden of indirect taxes, but
we can reach the results which certainly under
the relative amount really paid by the South
When duties are paid upon imports, they are in
disputably paid by somebody-e -either by the con-
sumner of the goods imported, or by the exporter
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 sup
position. When the planter, either directly or
through the agency of merchants and factors, ex-
ports his tobacco, his cotton, rice, or breadstuts,
he receives payment in foreign goods which he
must bring back as imports and when he passes
the custom house at home, he has to pay part of
these returns for duties. Thus far the tax falls
entirely upon him, and if we stop here in our
reasoning, it is plain that the duties paid by
the different sections in the exact ratio of the
ports of their produce for it does not matter that
the producer may sell his tobacco 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; and that depends upon the value OF the
imports he has to take in payment, after deduct
ing all expenses and duties, which must therefore
come out of the planter at last, just as if he
ported and imported directly Nor can the produ-
Ger 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 ask
ing an lmposslblllty to demand nothing but specie
in payment, when the exports of cotton alone are
considerably more than the whole annual produce
of gold and silver in the world But the question
here IS, not what the producer could do, but what
he actually did. The records show, that he was
really paid for his exports in foreign goods, and
that duties have been paid upon those to an "a
mount over billion of dollars; and this enor-
nous sum the producer must have paid when he
had to surrender part of the value of his imports
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 the whole tax upon the consumer But, in
this case, the South must have paid a still greater
share of the duties than before for not only is she
a much larger consumer of foreign merchandise
than the North, but if the price of the imported
article is raised, must be the price of the SINH
lar article of domestic manufacture. And the
South would pay three four times much in
this shape to the Northern manufacturer, as she
would to Government in the form of duties 1t is
true that the increased price of domestic goods
would also be paid by the Northern consumer, but
with this important difference, that what was paid
would be spent amongst themselves, and so, in
manner, returned to their pockets, the factories
are scattered through their country, while, to the
South, it would be 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 undisputed princi
pies we shall adopt the other horn of the dilemma,
and assume that the duties were paid by the pro-
ducers, and the several sections in the ratio of
their produce exported This course is also more
agreeable to our determination to calculate South
ern burdens and Northern profits at the lowest pos
sible figures, for there can be no doubt that the
other view of the incidence of duties would at
least triple the sum paid by the South. At the
time it is proper to say, that in belief the
duties are paid partly by the producer and partly
by the consumer; that, so far as the latter pays
them he pays three OF four times much more
in the increased price of similar goods of domestic
manufacture, and so far as the former pays them,
all that part of his produce sold at 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 consider her a producer of the eK
ports, or a consumer of the return imports. But
we shall, nevertheless, confne ourselves to the
very moderate princip pie of calculation, set out
with, as to say nothing that is not absolutely
certain.
The whole amount of duties collected from the
year 1891 to June 80, 1845, after deducting the
drawback foreign merchandise exported was
$927, ,O5O, ,O97 OF this sum the slaveholding
States paid $711 200 900, and the free States only
$215 $50 O97. Had the same amount been paid
by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of
their federal population, the South would have
paid only 1894, 7O7, 917, and the North $532,
342, 100. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid
1916, 492, ,O83 more than their just share, and the
free States as much less. They were FREE indeed
mot only of slaves, but of taxes By carrying
our calculation down to f849, this sum of 316
millions is raised to $50 odd millions.
In the following table we may see at glance
how this taxation fell on the respective popula-
ton of the North and South in each decennial
period
TABLE TAXES DUTIES FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FAMILY PERSONS
/