Year: 1867




The Committee on Ways and Means,
with commendable promptness, responded
to the general voice of the country by
bringingin bill, which was rushed through
the House, for the repeal of the cotton tax.
Very Unexpectedly the committee proposed
only a prospective repeal, whereas the
public interests and Justice require that the
repeal should apply to the crop of the
present year. Senator Wilson, of Massa-
chusetts, who examined the subject in his
late visit to the Southern States, has eX-
pressed his opinion that the repeal ought
to apply to the crop Of 1867. 4 pretence
was set up against this just and liberal pro-
vision that the benefits OF the repeal, if
made applicable to the present crop, will
inure to the benefit Of spectators. Again,
the claim is set mp, on the part Of purchas
ers and manufacturers, that the tax upon
this years product should be paid to them.


The consumers OF the manufactured cot
ton, upon this principle, ought to receive
the entire benefit Of the remission of the
tax. Ara one who buys piece of cotton
prints Or sheetings Of this years crop is
better entitled to a return OF the tax than
are the purchasers Of the cotton. 1t can be
shown that ever since that tax was imposed
it has fallen upon the producer alone. The
purchaser, when he buys the cotton, may
pay the tax, first deducting the amount Of
the tax from the price of the cotton. The
producer sells his cotton at two and half
cents per pound the less, on account Of the
tax. In other words, the tax represents
the sum which the Government takes as a
duty upon his product The Government
has made itself a partner in the plantation
enterprises, and claims fifth OF the pro
duct, without contributing to the plant
ers' capital, or in any way atfording him
any encouragement or assistance.


The cotton crop for the present year will
amount, perhaps, to two millions Of bales,
or more. Only one-ffth of it has yet come
forward, and been subjected to the tax
Therefore, if the repeal bill should be ap-
piled to the crop of this season, only few
of the producers would be entitled to the
benefit of refunding act. All others, If
the repeal be made Immediate, will reap
the benefit of the bill. Two fIths Of the
crop of this year remain III the hands of
producers.


It was thought, perhaps, when the cot
ton tax was at first imposed, that 1t would
fall upon the foreign consumers. This was
one OF the arguments in its support but 1t
is utterly dissipated by the fact that the
price of cotton is controlled at Liverpool,
where the product meets with the compo-
tition of ether cotton producing countries.
Thus our tax, as is understood by every fl
nancial man, and by the American Com
missioners who treated the subject at the
Paris Exposition, falls entirely upon the
producer in this country.


The Senate, it is hoped, will SO amend
the House bill as to apply it to the cotton
of this years crop now in the hands of pro-
ducers, embracing four-fifths Of the entire
crop There is the greater reason for this
at the present time, as cotton has expert
enced decline, and the planters in the
South can now realize only ci2It cents and
half pound fo1 it in gold, which is con
siderably less than the price before the
war, when cotton was produced at half the
cost