The Sumter banner. [volume] (Sumterville, S.C.) 1846-1855, 1851-09-09
POLITICAL,
ssg FROM the Charleston Evening News.
The giutlcdge Pamphlet.

InSthis writer's calculations there
is such great want of precision, that
itis difficult to mako out his meaning
with any dtstinctness and nothing
ut5the currency which his produc.
tions has obtained, where the means
/ arc not at hand for confutation,
4 would have induced the attempt to
disentangle his conceptions. The
following is found in his pamphlet,
pagc j:
80 Under the 30.pcr cent tariff, now
IN operation, our imports, or which
Is sthe came thing, our exports, add
4 totthe General Government an annu-
AT revenue Of about $4,000 ,0O0."
8 And insthc same page a littlo5lowcr
down. the following occurs II:
Our 900 900 Of ports
would as su Vui bFiir ts z, ,00 !.
10 { trade
4 ha profitable d ID ger Y amount as
3 the bales oficotton sent to market by
s the plantersrcturns to him their equiv.
Sasalent in merchai,dizc, &c. Under
tho present tariff, .hon, We should
lave revenue Of faboutS4. 600. .000."
Nov, as we have seen, he has es.
ttimated the Northern gain from the
tariff, with freight, commissions, cx.
change, &C., on Southern exports
and imports, at $5,000,000 annual
y. But in the above paragraph he
computes the annual tax paid in
South Carolina, on account of the
! tariff, at $4,000,000. Would he
then reduce the Northern profit on
our exports and imports, including
frcights, &C., to only 81 ,O00,O00?
when ne have shown that the frciyhts
alone cannot amount to less than
$2,500,000 per annum. He has
here so blended all the sources of
Northern profit, real and imaginary,
& rs to prescntno distinct ideas on the
subject. We have already separated
what ho has exhibited in combination,
and treated each branch, freight,
exchange, mercantile profit, in a dis.
tinct. form, with the exception Of tho
tariff. Since, however, Rutlelgc
dwclls much on the tariff, VIC vii
say q few words on this subject.
It is one of tho most difficult Of
calculations, in the whole range Of
this complicated investigation, to ar
rive at the amount Of foreign goods
consumed in South Carolina, as tho
basis of an estimate of the annual
sum in duty she pays under the pres.
Ont tariff. Wo have supposed that
$4 per head round, as the multiple
of her population, would furnish the
nearest approximativc result. We
find that the last annual Treasury
Report gives an average for several
years down to 1850 Of about $50
per capita, for the consumption Of
foreign goods, by the people Of the
United States. The average would
be less in South Carolina. /. From
the amount, nearly one half, Of our
4 slave population. 2. From the well
known frugal habits Of our people,
consuming uuch less Of foreign goods
than the people Of Georgia or Ala.
bama. II the consumption Of South
Carolina is estimated at 81 per head,
for man, woman, and child, it would
give ali aggregate annual consump.
ton Of q little beyond $2,000,0O0.
SNhisis thought by practical men to
be an over.estmate. But We have
taken as high an average for con.
sumption, per oapita, as will give q
large latitude to the sido Of the qacs:
sion which Rutledge has espoused.
The result, deducting the free goods
consumed, hetween gnc,thrdand one
halt as tie Whelc aiaolnbt, would