Newspaper Page Text
i
SOUTHERN RECORDER.
HY GRANTLAND 6l ORME.
MILLEDGEVILLE, GEORGIA, SATURDAY. JUNE 12, 1880.
asiftftaa*
If*. 20 or Vol. XI.
» The RscoSOTR i» published weekly, on Han
* , between Wavne and Jefferson, at Three
", per annum, payable in advance, or Four Dol-
if not paid before the end of the year,
i vratiUM*’'”conspicuously inserted at the usu
Those sent without a specification of the
her of insertions, will be published until ordered
and charged accordingly.
. 0 f land and negroes, by Administrators, Exe
,, or (Suanlians, are required by law to be held
'first Tuesday in the month, bntween the hours of
n the forenoon and three in the afternoon, at the
rt-house of the county in which the propertyis si
, —Notices of these sales must be given in n pub
eaiette sixty days .revious to the day of sale,
uices of the sale of personal property must be gi».
„ like manner, foktY days previous to the dnv of
Also notice to the debtors and creditors of an
to must lie published for roRTY days,
otice that application will be made to the Court of
inary for leave to sell land, must be published for
« months* , . ...
11 business in the line of Pnntin?, will meet with
npt attention at the Recorder Office*
f.tters (on huaincM) must be pout paid,
CONGRESS.
IOUSE OF representatives.
April 26.
SPEECH OF MR. McDUFFIE.
[continued.!
But, sir, there remains to be presented
iew of this subject, very little consider*
heretofore, either in this country or in
rope, which will exhibit the unequal
d oppressive operation of this govern-
;nt in a most striking light. When this
taken into the estimate, the committee
I perceive that 1 have been quite within
mark, in assuming that the staple
wing States are burthened in proporti-
to the amount of duties levied upon
ir commerce. Next to the unequal
actions of Government, nothing can be
re distressing to a country of such
st extent, than the unequal disburse-
nt of its revenues. Great us I have
ivn the inequality to be, in the contri
tions exacted from the different sections
the Union, the inequality of the dis-
rseraentsof the Federal Government is
II much greater. South of Norfolk-
rough the entire region extending thence
uth and Southwest along the Atlantic
id the Gulf of Mexico—a region which
ntrib'.ites two-thirds of the revenue of
whole Union—there is not annually
pended an average sum of five hundred
uustmd dollars! Now, sir, I do not
ntion this unequal disbursement for the
rpose of complaining of it, so much as
th a view to exphiiu the actual injury
d suffering which result from it. Ido
rily believe, then, that a tux of ten mil-
ns of dollars,expended among those by
loin it is contributed, would not be more
irthensotnc and oppressive than a tax
live millions of dollars expended iu
foreign country, or a distant portion of
ie Union. In other words, I believe n-
y State, Pennsylvania for example, would
ud it an advantageous pecuniary specu-
ition, to pay a million of dollars to the
ederal Treasury,annually, upoiwthe con-
ition that the Federal Government should
nuualiy disburse two millions of dollars
mong the people of that State, in the
urchase of gruiu, iron, manufactures, and
ach other productions as arc there made
)r market. It is obvious that a new de-
mod would be annually created for a
jillion of dollars’ worth of the product!-
us of Pennsylvania, and a new value
tereby given to those productions. It
r onld of course give the highest possible
limulus to productive industry, and at the
nd of the year the aggregate wealth of
ie State would be increased more than it
'ottld be diminished, by this fiscal ope-
ition, of paying one million in taxes,
nd receiving two millions in disburse
tents. The most striking example of
ie influence of Government disburse-
lents, of which history has kept any re-
ord, and that which first drew my otten-
ion to the subject, is that exhibited by
■rent Britain inthe war against the French
tepublic and the French Empire. The
xtraordinary financial resources of Great
iritain, iu that eventful struggle, have ex
ited tho wonder and admiration of the
vorld, scarcely less than the unparalleled
nilitury achievements and extensive con
[uests of the Emperor Napoleon. The
spectacle of a nation annually expending
ome two hundred millions of dollars,
ind yet flourishing almost beyond any for
mer example, seemed almost to bnffle the
profouudest speculations of political phi
losophy.
But the mystery is completely unravel
led when we advert to the fact, that she
annually borrowed, during fifteen years,
one hundred million* of dollars. By this
operation alone, the annual disbursements
•f the Government were made to exceed
6ie annual amount of the taxes, very near
ly one hundred mtfliona. We have, there*
lore, almost the very state of things I sup
posed, in regard to Pennsylvania. The
government levied, an annual tax of
$100)000,000, and made an annual dis-
oursemen: of $200,000,000. Great Bri-
fein was never so flourishing; and, if the
•tame operation could have lasted forever,
*!* e would have oontinued to flourish on to
the end. But it waa not in the nature of
things that it could last much longer than
H did. Great Britain was acting the part
the prodigal, who converted hit inheri
tance into an annuity for 15 years, and
dien expended his whole annual income,
^ne waa living upon the resouroeeof paste-
Qt y, and if ahe had gone much further,
£ he would have exhausted them. But
when peace was restored to Europe, the
Picture of British prosperity was revers-
^ When superficial observers were ex
pecting an increased prosperity from the
Cessation of war and its expenditures, a
scene of distress end ruin ensued, uot
010re astonishing and apparently unac-
*®natable than the former prosperity.—
But the one was just as natural as the oth
er. The sudden withdrawal of the dis
bursements, of the government, to the a-
mount of more than $100,000,000; with
out nny corresponding reduction of the
taxes, wns like withdrawing his accustom
ed stimulus from n man, who habitually
took his bottle of wine a day. A paraly
sis was thrown over the industry and pros
perity of the nation, from which no one
can predict when she will recover.
Now, Sir, when you have looked at
this picture, and then looked at that—
when you have compared the distress and
suffering of Great Britain since the peace
of Europe, with the prosperity which pre
ceded it, you have, on the one hand, an
exemplification, and only a faint one, of
the blasting and withering influence of e-
normously unequal tnxes levied in one
portion of the Union, with scarcely any
return in the form of government disburse
ments : and on the other, of the animat
ing and invigorating influence of large
disbursements in portions of the Union,
that make scarcely any contributions, com
paratively speaking, to the public revenue.
I will now ask the attention of the Com
mittee to a comparison which I propose
to institute, between the actual distribu
tion of the burthens of the Federal taxes
among the different classes of productive
industry nnd the different geographical
subdivisions of the Union, nnd the distri
bution that would take place under a just
and equitable system of taxation. What,
then, is the true principle of distributive
justice, in the apportionment of taxes a-
inong the different portions of the commu
nity 1 It is laid down in a work of the
highest authority—and, indeed no autho
rity is necessary to give sanction to a rule
of such apparent justice—“That the sub
ject of every State ought to contribute to
wards the support of the Government, as
nearly as possible, in proportion to the
revenue which they enjoy under the pro
tection of the State. The expense of
Government, to the individuals of a great
nation, is like the expense of management
to the joint tenants of n great estate, who
are all obliged to contribute in proportion
to their interests in the estate. In the ob
servance or neglect of this maxim consists
what is called equality or inequality of
taxation." According to this fundamen
tal rule, the justice und equity of which
no man, lam sure, in this committee, will
venture to controvert, an Income Tax
would be the nearest approach that could
be made to thnt equality which ought to
be the aim of every Government, and
which our own constitution, most careful
ly, but vainly, attempted to secure. With
a view to ascertnin what would be the re
sult of such a plan of taxation, so far as
regards its distribution among the various
portions of the Union, I have made an
estimate of the aggregate'amount of all
the incomes of the United States, giving
as the result, 350,000,000 dollars. I have
subjected this estimate to the test of seve
ral inodes of calculation, and 1 think it
rather under than over the truth. A Bri
tish economist estimated the income of
G. Britain in 1820, at 350,000,000 pounds
sterliug, and I canuol suppose it will be
deemed extravagant to estimate the in
come of the United States, in 1830, nt ns
many dollars. What, then, would bo the
distribution of the burthens of the Fede
ral taxation among the different sections
of the Union, if the people were taxed in
proportion to their incomes? It is to be
remarked that the exports of the staple
growing States constitute the principal
part of their annual income. But that I
may be certain of not making too low an
estimate, I will assume thnt the income
of all persons engaged in producing cot
ton, tobacco, nnd rice, is $70,000*00—
nearly double the amount of their exports;
and that the income of those engaged in
producing cotton and rice is $50,000,000.
To produce a revenue of $ 24,500,000, a
tax of only seven per cent, upon the ag
gregate income of the nation would be ne
cessary. In the apportionment of this
sum, upon the principles of an Income
Tax, there would fall to the share of the
growers of cotton, tobacco, and rice, only
4,900,000 dollars, and to that of the grow
ers of cotton and rice, only $3,500,000;
whereas all the other branches of produc
tive industry in the United States, would
have to contribute $ 19,600,000. Let us
now compare this equitable distribution of
the taxes, with that which actually exists
under our present revenue system. The
growers of cotton, tobacco, & rice, as 1 havqj
heretofore shewn, now actually contribute'
to the support of this Government 14,800,'
000 dollars, being $9,900,000 more than
their just proportion; and the growers of
cotton and rice contribute $ 12,000,000,
being $ 8,600,000 more than their just
proportion.
I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that tho in
equality of our present system of impost
duties, as a scheme of taxation, is so e-
normous, that it is calculated to astound
those who have not thoroughly examined
tbo matter. With a view, therefore, of
presenting the question in a more practi
cal and a familiar point of view, f will
suppose that a general excise were impos
ed upon aH those productions which con
stitute tho haais of the internal commerce
*( the Union, and that the imposed du
ties upon foreign commerce were reduced
to the same rate. As a mere question of
distributive justieo, it cannot be doubted,
for n moment, that the exchanges of inter
nal commerce should be subjected to the
very same impositions with the exchanges
of foreign commerce. It is essential, in
deed, to the perfect equality of taxation,
that all indirect taxes should fall precise
ly alike upon all the production* of do
mestic industry, made or manufactured
for sale, whether at home or abrond. If
the planter is called upon to pay a certain
per centage upon the annual value of the
cotton he exchanges for foreign manufac
tures, upon what human principle can it
he contended, that the farmer is not equal
ly liable to pay the same per centage up
on the annual value of the grain and oth
er productions, which he exchanges with
the neighboring manufacturer; and that
the manufacturers, of every description,
arc not equally liable to pay the same per
centage upon the annual value of the ma
nufactures they exchange for agricultural
and other productions in the domestic
market? An impost and an excise duty
are precisely the same in principle, differ
ing only in the solitary particular, that
they fall upon different productions of do
mestic industry. And whether the tax
ultimately falls upon the producer or con
sumer, a just regard to the principle of e-
quality would require that all the produ
cers and all the consumers of the country,
should equally participate in sustaining
the financial burthens of the State.
If the value of the cotton exported by
the planter is to be regarded as the mea
sure of his income, upon the very same
principle, the value of the grain sold bv
the farmer, or of the cloth sold by the ma
nufacturer, should be regarded as the
measure of his income, and the duty im
posed accordingly.
Now, Rir, it will be found upon exami
nation, that a general system of impost
and excise duties equally applicable to all
commercial exchanges, whether foreign
or internal, would bring us almost to the
verv same result as an income tax.
The advocates of the prohibitory sys
tem have habitually dwelt upon the insig
nificance of oar foreign, when compared
with our internal commerce. In the well
known address of the Harrisburg Con
vention, it wns assumed that the internal
commerce of the Union, amounted to
500,000,000, being nearly ten times the
amount of ourforeign commerce. I think
this estimate extravagant; and will not,
therefore, use it, even against the manu
facturers themselves. It may be safely
assumed, however, that the internal com
merce of tho Union amounts to two hun
dred and eighty millions, exclusive of the
coasting trade in foreign merchandise. It
follows, therefore, that while the whole of
the taxes of the Federal Government are
thrown upon less than one fifth of all the
productions of national industry—the aver
age amount of imports being less than
$70,060,000, there nre productions equally
liuble to taxation upon every principle of
equity & justice, amounting to $280,000,-
000, which are not only entirely free from
all government impositions, but a large por
tion of which actually receive Government
bounties ! Sir, it is in vain for gentlemen
to attempt to disguise this gross and mon
strous inequality, under the vague notion
tliut the ultimnte burthen of taxation falls
exclusively upon the consumer. Even if
this were true to the letter, it would not
materially vary the case as to the unequal
operation of the revenue lnws upon the
different sections of the Union. The Com
plaint is, that upon less than seventy mil
lions of the commercial exchanges of the
country principally belonging to the
planting Stutes—the whole of the federal
taxes are levied, white upon commercial
exchanges equally liable to taxation, be
longing to the farming, & manufacturing
States, to the vast amount of 280,000,000,
dollars, uo imposition at all is laid by this
Government. Now I challenge any gen
tleman to point out a single instance in
the history of the world—I will not except
the cruel exactions of the Reman Go
vernment from the conquered Provinces—
that can be compared with our own reve
nue system, for the injustice and inequa
lity of the contributions it draws from tbe
people of the Southern and South-western
Slates. When nil the States of this Un
ion were Atlantic States, and were inter
ested very nearly ih an equal degree in the
foreign exchanges of the country, no
great injustice resulted from making these
exchanges sustain the whole fiscal bur
thens of the Government. But even in
1790, the period to which I refer, Alexan
der Hamilton, the putative father of the
prohibitory system, deemed it unwise and
inexpedient to carry the duties upon fo
reign merchandise higher than seven and
a half per cent. How would he have been
astonished, if any one had predicted that
in less than forty years, $14,900,900, out
of a revenue of $23,000,000, would be
raised by duties upon little more than one-
ninth part of the productive industry and
commercial exchanges of the Union !
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, if gentle
men did not permit themselves to bt> car
ried away by a mere distinction in names,
Ibis unequal distribution ofthe taxes would
strike them more forcibly than it now
dots, tf the whole revenue of tbe Uni
ted States were raised by an excise, and
instead of levying an impost on the mer
chandise imported, an excite duty to the
*aiM extent were levied upon our cotton
when sold to the paerchant, and before it
ranches the custom-house, tbe palpable
injustice, the outrageous inequality of tbe
system, would be apparent to every one.
It could not then be disguised, that the
Government was exacting an excise duty
of forty per cent from the cotton planters,
while upon the productions of other parts
of the Union, standing upon precisely
the same footing) and amounting to nine
times the value of all tbe Cotton made for
exportation, it exacted no duty at all.—
Now, as I have heretofore shown, thnt an
impost duty is precisely equivalent to an
export duty upon the same commercial
exchange, it follows, from the same course
of reasoning, that an excise duty paid up
on cotton when it leaves the store-house
of the planter, is precisely equivalent to
an export duty paid at the custom-house.
Both are equally taxes upon the produc
tions of the planter, and operate precise
ly alike in all their bearings, whether we
regard them ns throwing the burthen of
tbe tax upon the producer or the consum
er. And I have no hesitation in saying,
thnt I would regard a law imposing in
excise duty of forty per cent, upon all
cotton sold by the planters in the United
States, and providing at the same ’time
that foreign merchandise received in ex
change for it, might be imported free of
duty, os making not the slightest change
in the burthens under which we now la
bor. How then let me ask,—and I beg
gentlemen to answer me the question, if
with clear consciences they can—how
would a law strike them which provided,
in terms, that an excise duty of forty per
cent, should he levied upon all the produc
tions of tbe Southern States, whereas of
the immense amount of the productions of
the Northern, Middle, and Western States,
only twenty millions should be subject to
a similar excise, and the remaining two
hundred and eighty millions, expressly
exempted from nny imposition at all ?—
Would such a law bear inspection?—
Would not such an inviduous and unjust
distinction shock the moral sense of every
man in the community? And yet, sir,
the law I have supposed, would do noth
ing more than express, in words, what ac
tually exists at this moment in the reve
nue laws of this Government, wrapped up
and disguised in the indirectness of their
operation, and the generality of th* terms
iu which they are expressed.
I have been recently looking into a
British production of high reputation,
which speaks in strong terms of the in
tolerable weight of British taxation. As
a conclusive argument in favor of a re
duction of the taxes, the writer asserts that
they amounted, including the corn laws
and poor rates, to a tax of 33} per cent,
upon the income of every individual in
the kingdom. This he regarded as being
so very oppressive, that no people could
possibly endure it. Now, sir, every cot
ton planter in the United States pays a
tax of at least 33} per cent, upon his in
come to sustain the Federal Government,
in addition to his contribution to the re
venue of the State in which he resides. In
deed, as almost the whole of his income
is derived from the exchanges of foreign
commerce, the tax he pays upon the an
nual amount of that income, cannot be
estimated at much less than the rate of
the duty which is indirectly laid upon the
productions of his industry. And thus it
is, that while we are vainly and ignorant
ly boasting of our freedom from taxation,
the people of a portion of the Union are
subject to a more oppressive burthen than
the most heavily taxed people on the face
of the earth. *
Thus far, Mr. Chairman, I have confin
ed myself to the consideration of the
mere fiscal operations of the Federal Go
vernment, and have attempted to show the
unequal action of your revenue system
upon different parts of the Union, with
out reference to tho protection afforded by
the impost duties, to certain branches of
domestic industry. It now becomes my
duty to trace the operation of what has
been very inappropriately denominated
the protecting system ; and to ascertain,
if possible, how far it contributes to in
crease the inequality of the burthens im
posed by the Federal Government upon
the people of the staple growing States.
And, Sir, let it be remembered that a
revenue system, grossly and palpably un
equal in itself; a system which, under the
most favorable modification would levy the
entire amount of the federal taxes from one
fifih part of the productions of the Union,
while the other four-fifths nre ontircly ex
empted from all manner of imposition—
let it be remembered, I say, that this is the
substratum upon which hns been reared up
this monstrous and ioiquitoas superstore
ture—the protecting system. It did not
satisfy the manufacturers and their confe
derates, that the whole expense of sup
porting the Federal Government should
be sustained by those branches of domes
tic industry, which make up the foreign
commerce of the country—it did not sa
tisfy them, that they themselves were not
only exempted from all impositions by the
Government, but actually received au in
direct bounty from the imposts laid upon
other branches of industry, for the pur
pose of revenue. No, Sir; all this did
uot satisfy them; they are now making a
sure and steady, and for any thing that
cau be done here, an irresiatable progress
in the system of legislative warfare, by
which will be ultimately swept from the
face of the ocean a large and valuable
branch of foreign commerce, exclusively
belonging to the staple growing States
and which now actually contributes two-
thirds of the revenue of this Government.
And this, sir, is what they are pleased to
denominate a system of protection,
This system, which has been gradually
built up, as far as it has gone, by succes
sive acts of Congress, upon the ruins of
Southern commerce, has now become, in
the estimation of some gentlemen, an ob
ject of idolatry too sacred to be touched
without profanity. When, at an early
period of tbe session, 1 had the honor to
introduce a bill to modify the existing ta
riff, by a very moderate reduction of the
duties, a very extraordinary excitement
was manifested. A gentleman from Penn
sylvania rose in his place, and, as if some
great indignity had been offered against
the majesty of the protecting system, ap
proaching to the guilt of treason, the
measure was unceremoniously condemn
ed, and strangled at the very threshold,
without the common forms of parliamen
tary proceeding. The gentleman to whom
I allude, (Mr. Ramsey,) as an excuse for
a course so unusual and uncourtenus,
stated that he had no idea of having the
repeal of tho tariff of 1828, discussed or
agitated, until we had ascertained, by ex
perience, whether it was really as injuri
ous as it hud been represented.' Mr. Chair
man, I should be very unwilling to permit
an ignorant physician, wholly unacquaint
ed with my constitution and habits, to in
dulge in experimental quackery, at the
imminent hazard and almost certain sa
crifice of my life. For the same reason,
I cannot consent that the vital interests of
my constituents should be put to hazard
upon the result of any experiment in po
litical quackery, which can only end in the
ruin of those interests. The gentleman
says, give it a trial; not reflecting that
when the result is ascertained, the patient
may be dead. What hns taken place,
forcibly reminds me, Sir, of the mode of
trial adopted in times not quite so enlight
ened as the present, for ascertaining the
guilt or innocence of certain venerable
old women, charged with the dreadful
crime of witchcraft. In the dark ages
of jurisprudence, these predestined vic
tims were subjected to a species of trial,
denominated, I believe, the water-ordeal.
The mode of trial was very simple, and,
as it wns no doubt supposed, perfectly fair
and equitable. A large stone was tied
arnuna the neck of the person accused,
und she wns cast into deep water, under
the very natural belief, that if she was re
ally guilty of dealing with the devil, he
would not permit her to sink. While,
therefore, humanity cried out for the res
cue of tho struggling and sinking victim,
the stern justice of the times replied, *• let
her alone! let her alons 1 if she be really
a witch 6he certainly will not sink.” I
need hardly state, to this enlightened au
dience, the final issue of the trial. The
innocence of the accused was most con
clusively established, but unfortunately
for the poor, old woman, it was not ascer
tained until after she was consigned to a
watery grave, and placed beyond tho
hope of resuscitation. And such, sir, will
be the inevitable fate of that brunch of
our foreign commerce, which is the right
ful and almost exclusive property of the
planting States. I have no idea of indulg
ing gentlemen in these witchcraft ordeals
with the rights and interests of the whole
Southern and Southwestern portions of
this Union.
I am not unaware, sir, of the prevalence
of un idea, that the Government stands
pledged to maintain the system of high
8nd prohibitory duties, from the mere cir
cumstance of having once enacted it.—-
Nothing cau be more utterly fallacious,
than the idea that the faith of the Go
vernment is concerned in the maintenance
of an unjust and oppressive system, sim
ply because it has been adopted. It as
sumes that the Government is some ideal
being at Washington, who has persuaded
the manufacturers and others concerned,
to invest their capital in certain pursuits,
by giving them the assurance that tbe
high duties would be maintained: Now,
Sir, what is the Government by which
this pledge has been given to the manu
facturers? It is not composed of the
representatives of these very manufactu
rers, and of the intersts associated with
them, making together thnt interest
ed and despotic majority, by which the
most undoubted rights and interests of
tho minority have been sacrificed ? And,
sir, is it to be endured, that these men
should gravely get up and urge their own
acts of injustice and oppression, as creat
ing a pledge to maintain and extend their
encroachments, upon the rights of the
minority ? Sir, I protest against a doc
trine which thus sanctifies nnd conse
crates to-day, what was admitted to be in
justice and oppression yesterday.
What, then, let us briefly inquire, is ths
tendency, and what has been the effect;
of the high duties imposed for the pur
pose of protecting manufactures, and o-
ther domestic productions 2 It is too plain
to admit of argument: indeed it has been
candidly admitted by the Chairman of the
committee on manufactures, in former dis
cussions, that domestic productions can
faoturcs of cotton, wool, iron, *ad hemp,
which have beeu brought info existence in
the United Statea, by ths System of high
protecting duties, at least an equal amount
of foreign rival productions has been e*
eluded by those duties. It will aM bn
only be protected by
various kinds, to the amount of IwelM
millions of dollars, which would nbt hiv$
been produced, hut for tho protection gi
ven them. It follow*, then, as • corolla
ry, that at least ao equal amount ofthesS
articles of foreign production must have
been excluded. But these are the rerif
articles which we receive fVom Great Bri
tain, France, and Holland, in exchange
for our agricultural staples. By exclu
ding twelve millions of such articles,
therefore, we necessarily diminish the fo
reign demand for our staples, and prin
cipally cotton, to that amount. Tpcre is
scarcely any limit to the' Cohsumption of
our cotton iu Europe, but that which id
imposed by our refusal to take manufac
tures in exchange for it. If, therefore, w*
were permitted to import the twelve milli
ons of dollars worth of manufactures that
have been excluded bv our commercial re
strictions, or rather, if they had never been
excluded by those restrictions, it cannot
be reasonably doubted that we should
now have a demand in Europe for 400,000
bales of Cotton, beyond the existing de
mand; Even, therefore, if we grantj
what is not the fact, that the whole of the
domestic demand for cotton has been pro-,
duced by the prohibitory effect of our ta
riff, it will follow that wa hare gained a
market, for 160,000 bales, by sacrificing
one for 400,000. From this estimate it
will be seen that the prohibition of foreign
imports has resulted ini curtailing the en-.
tire demand for cotton in the markets of
the whole world, including our own, two
hundred and fifty thousand bales. In
addition, then, to the annual burthen lie
bears, in paying the duties upon the im
ports he is still permitted to bring into tb*
country, the planter sustains an annual
loss of $7,500,000, being the value of the!
cotton for which be has lost a market, in
consequence of the unjust restriction* im
posed upon his lawful commerce by th£
suicidal policy of his owe Government.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I have by this
time satisfied the committee, that I have
not exaggerated the burthens of the South*
era planters in stating that a duty of 49
per cent, upon the amount of their exports,
may be taken as the measure of those
burthens. I have not the slightest doubt
that I have greatly under-estimated those
burthentf looking to the operation of yout
impost duties in the double aspect of a sys
tem of revenue, and a System of protec
tion. Having now, Sir, made out the
case of tho Southern planters—having
demonstrated the grossly unequal and op
pressive operation of your whole Tariff
system, upon the productions of theif
lawful iudustry, I will no* proceed to the
consideration of the principal ground up
on which the advocates of this have at
tempted to rest it, as * measure of justiq*
and expediency. It is almost universally
conceded by all the supporters of the pro
tecting policy, from Alexander Hamilton
down, that if all other nations would;
throw off the restrictions they have im
posed upon commerce, it would be wiser
in the United 8tatas to pursue the same
policy. But it is contended, that as long;
as other nations continue to impose re
strictions upon the free importation of our
productions, it is expedient and necessa
ry, that we should countervail their regu-' *
lationa by imposing similar restriction*
upon their productions. Now, Sir, if I-
am not greatly deceived in the view t
have taken of the matter, this is the ca
pital error which lies at the foundation of
the whole protecting system. And no
thing will, perhaps, tend more clearly to,
expos? the trite genius and character of
that system, than a brief examination and.
exposure of this error. I wave, for the
present, as belonging to another branch'
of inquiry, the policy of countervailing
regulations, calculated And designed to
induce other nations to abandon their re
strictions. No one pretends that dura nre
of that character, either as to their design
or tendency. As a mere question of po
litical economy, then, I maintain that the
Restrictions which foreign nations impose
upon the importation of any production)
of ours, in pursuing their established po
licy, furnishes not the slightest ground*
upon tho score of interest or,expediency,
for imposing similar restrictions upon any
of the productions of those foreign na
tions. I drill illustrate my view by con-
the fo- sidering the operation of the British com
sumed, therefore, that whatever may be
the amount of iron and salt, nnd menu
laws upon the commerce of the United
States. Let it, then, be gNnted, that
Great Britain hoi absolutely prohibited^
the importation of foreign-grain. No onja
pretends that she has not an undoubted
right, under the Ihw of nations) to do so?
We have no just cause to (i din plain of it.
Indeed, her policy in this respect.)*.,not
only imitated, but applauded by the advb*
cates of the reitriniiVe system here.*-!
Then, sir, the exclusion of our grain from
Great Britain, is simply n fact to b* con
sidered by this Government, without ant
regard to the cahses that have produced
it. It is precisely the semi thing to the
grain growers of tfaia country, at if th#
increased feriility of Great Britain, re
ing from a newly discovered manue, ..
«nab\pd th* fiurmtrs of that country
reign articles thut would come in compe
tition with them. Ha openly avowed that
he aimed at prohibition, and it would have
been folly to have aimed at less, if he re
ally meant to give protection. No duty
can give aay protection to any domestic
fabric, which does not exclude n similar
foreign fabrie; aftd in tho very nature of
things, the amount of protection cannot
exceed the amount of prohibition, though
it may, and generally does, fall short of it.
You cannotcreate a demand, for exam
ple, for any domestic manufacture, by le
gislation, otherwise than by excluding n
similar foreign manufacture | and as your
legislation is calculated to enhance the
price of the article, you certainly cannot
create by it a demand for agtepter amount
of the domestio fabric than .you exclude —^
of the foreign: It msy be confidently m- prod ike grain as cheaply as it can be pro
duced! in Kentucky or Ohio. There,
aopltf be oo egQre effectual exclusion if