The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1857-02-24

/ eipn goods cheap. heap. ghAii not dwell upon the
injustice involved 10 ibis proposition, though it
strikes me asa. direct taittack upon the right Of
property and ihe.ight of labor, to prohibit
man from bnyisg q selipg to the best advan'
tage. To t6s extern. that Loses by your
prohibition, ito thai sxtspt you have eon6scated
the fruits Of hs.ihadsEB. But, what wisdom
is there in this proposition : 1t is true, we
are often told by the monopolists tina; it is ru.-
inous to hoy cheap foreign goocs. But can
hardly conceive of more monstrous fallacy
than this idea. Test it by every dag's:experi.
ence and common sense. Suppose, Mr. Chair.
man, you should go into tailor's shop to buy
a coat, and the tailor should say to yous you
may have 1this. .eassfor thirty dollars, it was
made in stbA:U :Uaited Esates; but You may have
that othef 6ns n Ills! just as good, for fifteen
dollars. 30 i; MI ,sade. in Eaeope," Wba.
4 womb itffi ;affi al ysdf aasfsioa to
foreign ir,f1nessee; sn1 would | Imagine, take
two of thsStlesrs az coats, father& than one
Of the thirty iri0 0llsrscoats Eserybody acts
upon this rsirc;ples 81 fsi the wisdom of every
i aay life Ifit Is Mjs6in individuals to do this.
4 why is il not a;sein sae country to dothe same!
90 show the infinite absurdity Of this idea, let
us suppose that fnreign countries, instead u
selling us their goods cheap, should g8se them
To u.s. What would be the consequence
WHY, our utter ruin; for If it is injurious to
buy ehesp. of course it would be utter ruin to
get for no,hing. Such is theological conclusion
tn which this argument necessarily tends "a
onseonar,cssoabsu shall not dwell longer
New for de, third. In order that these
mqhnfseausers may succeed, they require you
to make the ooii iisumers of the country pur.
i chase from fhenlsat price enhanced to the ex
4 teri III tht dffs ION the foreign article. What
. jnstics.is ghspesi1 thuts Why is It that one por
,ion az The. i,enpie should be compelled to buy
from sppthsfFpof tiou, and smaller portion, a,
higher prize tEan they could buy elsewhere?
Wsy sasutdl lihe.great body of the American
people BE- saglised to pay in the enhanced price
an Indirect tax to The manufacturers? Is :here
anv instce in iti III reading the annals Of the
middle ages, we are shocked when we are in.
formed that the fierce barons of those times
we're wont to descend from their mountain
businesses and levy contributions from the peo
pie of the valleys at the point Of the sword
We considered :hey were barbarians.
+ Now, what difference is there in principle
whether you levy tribute at the point of the
sword or,by the legerdemain Of legislation2 :.
Suppose a direct tax was levied on the great
+ body Of the American people to he paid over
as q huutis 10 the manufacturer would the
lpsapla.standftl No, sir; the very stones Goulc
trise IN mufiny against its payment. WHAT'S
Il he d;;derepee in PRINCIPLE whether +yourdo it
lt3;ssfs c8si iFdirectly! lii one case you DIV II
with mbn.hses>; in the other With conceament
8 IL yon ask what are the profits Of the manu-
& f.ctutera the reply is, "!hey do not make more
: 'tiIan4aix or seven per cent" After the honor.
able gentleman from Rhode Island Mr., Durfee
made his speech two weeks asp upon the sub
iect Of free wool, asked him what were thu
profits Of the wooden manufacturers He sale
THAT the woolen; manufacturers were losing
money, but that the cotton manufacturers said
t they were making six per cent. What is the
result, then? Why, the great mass Of the Peo
, pie have been made poorer to assist these n'er
? in making average profits. Az the ndirec
tribute levied from the consumers by the man
+ ufscturars, only raises their profits to the aver
aye profits Of the country, it follows, then, tina
this indirect tribute is a total loss to the pro
: dnctve energirs of the country, and gthe effec
, is the same thing TO the country As if, under I
free trade policy, This amount had been throwr
: Into the sea. "
have thus gone through with the three pro
positions involved in the deuand for protection
as they are all alIaces ii follows that the sys
tenn resting upon them is also fallacy.
And here would ask, what is the amount o
indirect taxes paid by the consumers Of th'
country tothe manufacturers, under this pro
tective p"licyl 1t appears that, in the last isca
year, there were enough Of cotton and wooier
goods, manufactures of iron, and sugar, produ.
ced in This country to make the indirect ta'
upon them. amoant to S39,975. .9S5-that is
tho price ofthese articles was enhanced to tina
extent by the duty upon foreign articles of q
similar kind. In other words, we paid $39,
975,9s5, Of indirect taxes to manufacturers
during the last fiscal year. Bnt am disposed
TO be Hpderate, and L will strike out the ''nine,
and cali.it in round numbers, 10000, 600
though the Secretary ofthe Treasury, in ls46
estimated these indirect taxes ut $4,000. 900
pu, it at $50, 100000. In 1882, it was estima
ted that the indirect taxes paid mp to tha
time to the manufacturers was S240, 900, 600
Snpposnei it to amount to 30,000, ono annual
ly from tha, time to the present. the total SUN
up tn the present time is 81, 900, ,000,000, ir
round numbers; and that is the amount whict
the people of the United States have paie
manufacturers in Indirect taxes. Well that
Il vast sum!
r.,MILLsON. AsI understand the gen.
tIeman, he inu)tiplies the domestic consumption