The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-01-05
The Import Duty on Rice.

The Import Duty on hfce'
The Chamber OF Commerce and the BOARD
of Trade of Charleston have entrusted to
special committees the duty Of considering
the propriety OF memorializing Congress- in
opposition to the proposed reduction OF the
import duty Of two and half cents pound
on. foreign rice. These bodies represent
every branch Of the mercantile interests Of
this city. Among the members are the
bankers and merchants who are relied on
for active help in every matter OF public con-
Germ. The formal resolutions Of the Chamber
and Of the Board are accepted as the deci-
sion OF the mercantile community. 1t Is
most important, therefore, that these organl-
cations move with prudence and dellbera-
tion. They cannot afford o-be pledged, by
minority OF their number, to any policy
which is not clearly wise and just.
The rice trade is Of great value to
Charleston, and We can understand that
they wto are engaged in 1t should earnestly
oppose any measure which is likely to
diminish the yearly yield. And the rice
planters, who suffered terribly by the war,
and are, by degrees, restoring their broad
acres to their former condition, are ready to
make a hard fight against any legislation
which will lower the market value OF their
crops, and reduce their rate OF profit: We
believe that the rice planters are agreed in
declaring that they cannot afford to grow
rice at all, IL there is any serious falling OIL
in the selling price, and they, and their
friends, are disposed to use. every means
within their reach Of preventing 30 unpleas-
ant result. The full force OF this PROPOSE
tioa must be felt in Charleston, where the
losses and heavy burdens OF the w-country
planters are only too well known; but the
question is, whether this city, acting through
the Chamber Of Commerce and Board OF
Trade, can properly take active steps in favor
Of the identical policy OF Protection, for
which Pennsylvania and New England battle
hard, and which is expected to be overcome
by. the united efforts Of the South and West T!
The plea OF the South Carolina rice-grower
is the plea OF the Pennsylvania iron founder.
Whatever the superficial difference, their
substantial merit is the same. AS the rice
grower may ask that he shall not be brought
into competition with the pauper labor OF
Asia, until the damages caused by the war
are repaired, so. the mill-owners and manu-
iacturers OF New England ask that they be
protected against the psuper labor OF Eu-
rope. The Rhode Island mill-owners, who
point to their huge buildings and costly ma
chinery, and bid representatives in Con-
gress remember that Free Trade in cottons
will make the property valueless and throw
thousands Of persons out OF employment, oc-
cupy the same ground as the South Carolina
rice-planters, who fear that reduction o.
the duty on rice will cause their acres to lie
idle and deprive their negro laborers of the
means OF gaining their daily bread. Pro.
lection for the rice-grower and Protection
for the manufacturer OF cotton goods or ma
chinery is one and the same thing-as eco
nomically false in the one case as in the
other. There is as much wisdom in de-
mandinga high import duty on rice as there
is in demanding high duty for the encour-
agement OF orange-growing in Florida. A
handful OF bananas may, with good luck,
be grown in Charleston; but this is not held
to justify the claim that prohibitory duty
should be imposed on tropical fruit. Absurd
as the comparison may seem, the case OF the
mill-owner, OF the rice-grower, Of the orange
grower and Of the grower OF bananas, is, in
principle, the same.
We appreciate fully the force OF the argn-
ment that q reduction OF the duty on rice,
however correct in principle, would infict
serious Injury upon the planters. This, in
deed, suggests one Of the main difficulties
with which the advocates OF Free Trade
have to contend. The benefits OF protection
are. sensibly felt by the persons for whose
advantage the high duty is imposed: The
blessings of free trade are distributed the
whole country over, and are shared by all
its people. But il it be borne in mind that
a duty on cottons is a ta.c leoiea upon e0ery
consumer of cottonS for the profit OF the
mill-owner and manufacturer, it will be
understood at once that Protection considers
the weD.being OF the few. while Free Trade
consults the well-being OF the many. 1t isto
the interest Of the rice-growers and rice.mer.
chants that the product should, in conse-
uuence Of Protective duty, sell at remu-
nerative price. 1t is to the interest OF every
consumer OF rice throughout the United
States that it should be obtained at the low
est possible cost. Against the temporary
harm done the rice-grower by Free Trade
must be set the permanent advantage real
lied by. every consumer Of rice throughout
the country. It may be said that Protec-
tive duty on rice is only demanded as long
as New England and Pennsylvania demand
a protective duty upon the manufactures in
which they are interested. But two wrongs
D. 10 r;rbf Tho font that an