Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1857-02-26

pTOHtaDle or unpr0ptaDle. IL IL were prOutaoie,
no application would be made to Government for
did. The very fact of the application to govern
ment necessarily implies that the business is un-
profitable. This is logical conclusion of abso.
lutte certainty. Assuming then, that the proposed
business is Improbable, what course ought Gov
ernmcnt to take: Is it not plain that if it did any
thing, instead of aiding persons to 60 into IN un-
profitable business, it should rather discourage
| them from it? For itmust be observed that Gov
ernment does not by its action increase the capital
of n country it can only give new direction to
it, The capital of country, then, remaining the
same, insist it is unwise for Government, as .
mere question of political economy to aid in turn
ing any portion of the capital of country into an
Improbable channel because in the degree that
the rates Of profit upon the capital thus unproht-
ably directed is below the average rate Of prohts
of the capital of the country generally, to that e1-
tent there is anabsoute loss to the productive en-
ergies of the country. Therefore, it is unwise in
any country to turn capital into any channel yield.
ing less rate of profit than the average profits Of
the country. But such policy is peculiarly un.
wise with US, having, as we do, a new vast, and
undeveloped country, needing only the applica-
ton of capital and energy to produce the grandest
and most profitable results So much for this first
proposition.
AS regards the second proposition, that the con-
sumers should not be allowed to buy foreign goods
cheap. I shall not dwell upon the injustice in
volved in this proposition, though strikes me as
direct attack upon the right of property and the
right of labor, to prohibit a man from buying or
selling to the best advantage. To the extent that
he loses by your prohibition, to that extent you
have confscated the fruits of his industry. But,
what wisdom is there in this proposition? 1t is
true, We are often told by the monopolists that it
is ruinous to buy cheap foreign goods. But can
hardly conceive Of more monstrous fallacy than
this idea. Test it by every days experience and
common sense. Suppose, Mr.. Chairman, you
should 60 into tailor's shop to buy q coat, and
the tailor shonld say to you; "You may have
this for thirty dollars, it was made in the Uni
ted States; but you may have that other one,
which is just as good for fifteen dollars, as it was
made in Europe" What would you do? Why,
with all your aversion to foreign influence. you
would, imagine, take two Of the fifteen dollar
coats, rather than one of the thirty dollar coats.
Everybody acts upon this principle; it is the wis
dom of every day life. 1t is wise in individuals
to do this why is it not wise in the country to do
the same? To show the infinite absurdity Of this
idea let suppose that foreign countries, instead
of selling US their goods cheap, should give them
| to US. What would be the consequence? Why,
our utter ruin; for if it is injurious to buy cheap,
of course it would be utter ruin to get for nothing.
Such is the logical conclusion to which this argu-
ment necessarily tends--a consequence so absurd
shall not dwell longer upon it.
| Now for the third. In order that these manu-
facturers may succeed, they require you to make
the consumers of the country purchase from them
! at price enhanced to the extent Of the duty on
the foreign article. What justice is there in that
Why is it that one portion of the people should be
| all loI 70 hnu q
smaller portion, at higher price than they could
buy elsewhere? Why should the great body of
the American people be required to pay in the en-.
HANGED price an indirect tax to the manufacturers?
Is there any justice in it? In reading the annals
of the middle ages, we ore shocked when we are
| informed that the fierce barons of those times
were wont to descend from their mountain fast-
nesses and levy contributions from the people of
the valleys at the point of the sword. We consid-
cred they were barbarians.
Now, what difference is there in principle,
whether you levy tribute at the point Of the sword
or by the legerdemain Of legislation? Suppose o
direct tax was levied on the great body of the
American people to be paid over as bonus to the
manufacturer: would the people stand it? No.,
sir; the 7ery stones would rise in mutiny against
its payment What is the difference in principle
whether you do it directly or indirectly? In one
concealment. If you ask what are the profts5of
the manufacturers, the reply is, ''they, do not
make more than six or seven per cent" After
the honorable gentleman from Rhode Island Mr..
Durfee] made his speech two weeks ago upon the
subject of free wool, I asked him what were the
profits of tue woolen manufacturers? He said
that the wooden manufacturers were losing money,
but that the cotton manufacturers said they were
making six per cent What is the result, then2
Why, the great mass ofthe people have been made
poorer to assist these men in making average pro-
fits. As the indirect tribute levied from the con-
sumers by the manufacturers, only raises their
profits to the country, it follows then, that this
indirect tribute is loss to the productive ener-
gies of the country, and the effect is the same
thing to the country as it, undera free trade poll
cy, this amount had been thrown into the sea-
/ have thus gone through with the three propo.
sitions involved in the demand for protection; as
they are all fallaces, it follows that the system
resting upon them is also fallacy
| In further continuation Of his argument, Mr.
Boyce shows that in the enhanced price upon ar
ticles of domestic produce, occasoned by the tar
if, the people of this country have paid to man
ufacturers, since 1916, 81 000,000,000. That
the effect of this has merely been to encourage the
production of articles that would not have been
produced without that the operatives in these
employments receive no higher wages than they
would have received in other pursuits, and only
some twenty thousand manufacturers, therefore,
have been enriched by an expenditure Of 81 ,0oO,-
100000.
He favors direct taxation as the best mode Of
raising revenue; but as step in that direction
proposes to reduce NIL imposts to percent, and
to place tea and coffee that list, and subject to
only such restrictions rs would result from this
policy, he proposes to leave oil the people of the
country free to sell where they can sell dearest,
and buy where they can buy. cheapest, without
the legerdemain of legislation to control them.