The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-12-21
Oh A r L E S T o N u.
SATURDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 81, 1867.
cocoon morri1rs .Rlossing In Disguise.''

s.,a.or MorriIps "Blossing In Disguise"
The South has never favored high protec-
tive tariff. The reasons are obvious. The
North reaps all the profits of such SYSTEM
and the South foots all the bills Mr.. GREE
LEY. however, in the Tribune, and Mr.. NOR
e,11. in the Senate, continue to insist that
high prof ective tariff is great national ooon'
inst as SourHEY used to write up the national
debt of England, and speak Of it as great
blessing, because widows and ancient maid
ens can find O secure investment for their
s wings in the Three-per-cents In the lmpo-
sition of the present tariff the South mas nae
no part; and the same may be said OF the COM
MEX and unwise system of internal revenue
Had the South had voice in Congress, that most
stupid and iniquitous pie-e of legislation, the
cotton tax. could never have been enacted. We
raised our protest against it from the first,
foreseeing that upon the fall in the price OF
cotton. an absolute tex of three or two and
half cents q pound must become rulnousiy op-
nressiye. Had the tax been ad catoren, there
would have been less reason 10 complain.
Mr.. GREELEY has had very little to say on
the subject of the cotton tax. Whether this
strange silence proceeds from a conviction OF
its folly or injustice, or simply from the con-
sideration that it affects the negro, we are una
BILE to say but incline to the latter hypothesis
Mr.. MORRILL, looks to the revenue alone. Here
are twenty millions year, which he thinks it
foolish for the nation to relinquish. What
cares he for the industry of the South or for
the negro!
Senator MORRILL, is sadly inconsistent in his
arguments in favor of the cotton tax. l. lie
saws that he wants to restrain and limit the
production of cotton, and stimulate the produc-
ton of grain in the South. This the tax GER
tainly does; and if this is his real and sole
purpose, he is at least logical. The tax un-
ouestionably restricts the culture Of cotton in
the United States, and stimulates the produc-
ton in foreign countries. 2. But the Senator
also says that cotton can be more economically
produced in this country than anywhere else.
de comDate the opiniou VI tno OViHhuio'AonSA VI
Internal Revenue, who, after careful eXami-
nation of the subject had arrived at the opposite
conclusion He contends that the tax on cotton
is a protection to the planter, in that it limits
the crop, and thus brings him larger price.
sour chief danger" says Mr.. NJ, "was from
ourselves in increasing the CROP
We confess that we fail to see the force OF
Senator MoRRILL's reasoning. How can
heavy tax, that is to be prohibitory on some,
stimulate others? If ten small farmers can
plant cotton, and make profit on it, why not
one large planter? If there were discrimi-
nation in favor of small planters, as has been
proposed by some, we could understand the
Senator'S argument; but in his remarks on
Monday, he did not propose to exempt any one
from the tax If he could enforce his views,
cotton would soon be taxed entirely out of ex-
istenoe. However, the repeal of the tax is now
foregone conclusion, although it may be de-
layed by congressional hllibustering. We are
only sorry that Congress seems indisposed to
remit or refund the tax upon the crop Of the
present year.