North Carolina Newspapers

. Whole Ko. 861. Tarbnroiigh, (Edgecombe County, JY. CJ Saturday, September 3, i42, Vol. XVlllJS'o 35. " iZm1 s The Tarborough Press, Is DuMUhprf wpaItIit ,i t. n.M , J BY GEORGE HOWARD, Cents per year, if. paid in advance-or Three (which is more than the Serretary has al Dallars at the expiration of the subscription year.' lowed, exclusive of drawbacks and noun ror anj period less than a year, rweiity-Jioe a" ?-er m.nth 9nbscribe.TS. areatliberty to ; twenty-one million six hundred thousand discontinue at any time, on ?iTin? notice , t, inijons h and paying arrears those residing at a distance, S . f 1 ,a i ' P must invariably pay in a ivance, or give a respon- ceeUs J,,ne Public lands, thisurn ol twen sible reference in this vicinity. ty-lour million six hundred thousand dol- Advertisements not exceedinjr a square will be , lars If, by a proper system of retrench inserted at OneDollar the first, insertion, and 25 me;lt AW e(.onomy ,he cxpentlitures of the Cents for every continuance. Longer advertise-: j , 1 ments in like proportion. Court Orders and Ju-! mmen should be brought down to dicial advertisements -25 per cent, higher. Ad- e'gnieen millions of dollars, and one mil vertisements must be marked the number of in- j lion and a h ilf should be kept on hind for sertions required, or theywill be continued until . uuforese n emergencies, there will still be otherwise ordered and charged accordingly. ileftasumof five million one hundred Letters addressed to the Editor must De posi paid or they may not be attended to. SPEECH OF Hon. John R. J. Daniel, of N. C. On the Tariff Rill: delivered in (he H. oj Representatives, July S, IS42. The House being in Committee of the Whole on ihe state of the Union, and the tariffbill being under consideration Mr. DANIEL addressed the committee as fallows: continued froiii our last paper ) Mr. Chairman, I have described the ac tion and reaction of the banking and pro tective systems upon each other, upon the supposition that the banking system will be conducted as heretofore. If so I ad mit that the duties proposed by the bill un dr consideration may raise more revenue than a system of duties framed in the spir it of the compromise act. But if the prin ciples of banking are beginning to be bet ter understood, and the action and reaction of the two systems are beginning to engage public attention, (as is probably the case,) the natural tendency of the protective sys tem to produce bank expansions, and there by encourage importations, will, to some extent, be guarded against. Besides, I am mt without hope that some means may be devised to subject the banks, if they contin ue to exist, to such restraints as will con fine their issues to the business wants of society; not, indeed, by a Bank of the United States, which, as all experience will attest, has generally taken the lead in ex pansions and contractions, and rendered them more extensive and more disastrous: but by the several State Legislatures sub jecting the stockholders in their individu al property to some extent, at least, for the' liabilities ol the banks: and excluding Irom circulation all notes below a certain de nomination, with a view to enlarge our specie basis. Such po!icy, aided by in re establishment of the independent treas ury, or a suitable bankrupt law, would go far to remedy the evils, if practicable, inci dent to the paper systrm. If, from any cmise, bank issues shuiild be so regulated as to prevent expansions and contractions to any considerable degree, the high duties proposed by the bill will diminish impor tations to such an extent, that a system of duties, in accordance w'uh tho comprom ise act, will be no more likely to supply the wants of the treasury. Sir, having considered the question of the currency, as calculated to effect the sys tem of protective duties proposed to be es tablished, and having parsed in review some of the measures of the party in pow er, I now approach the more immediate consideration of the system of policy, the adoption of which the measures 1 have been considering have tended to insure. If, sir, the currency should be rendered more stable, and the less expanded, from the management of the banks hereafter, the amount of dutiable imports assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury as the basis of his estimates, ($93,S17,9S5,) and which, understand, is the basis on which the present bill has been framed may not be too low; but, otherwise, it may. But, if a more moderate system of duties should be adopted, whether the currency be less ex panded hereafter or not, the dutiable im ports may be assumed to be $ 00,000,000 at least, with the list of free articles report ed by the Secretary some of which, how ever, might very well enter into, and en large, the list of dutiable imports. The av erage imports from IS34 to IS40, inclusive, were 8141,476,769. The average con sumption for the same period (taken from a table, in which hundreds are not taken into the estimate) were 122,483,000, and the domestic exports $99,340,000. These data will warrant the assumption of at least 100,000,000 as the amount of dutiable imports, after allowing for exports that may be entitled to drawback. Twenty per cent, upon that amount, for home valua- tion, (if it be not too high,) and twenty percent, upon the value thus ascertained, will yield twenty four millions gross; and dei,,,cti,,S ,e' Per cent, for collection. tic,; and we shall have the net sum of iinju.idim uunurs io oo applied lo the la ment of the principal and interest of the public debt. But, sir, taking S93,S17,9S5 as the a mount of imports, and S2S.943.335 as the amout to be raided, including the cost of collection, and excluding bounties and drawbacks, according to the bill repott ed by the Secretary, and something like the same amount is propose I to be raised by the bill under consideration, although' the duties are somewhat varied, let me il lutrate the probable effects. The gross a mount of duties paid into the public treasu ry as taxes by the importers, for the li cense or privilege of selling their goods in our markets, is added to the foreign cost, as be I ore observed ; and, togedier with an ad ditional sum, to'cover charges and profits by each agent or salesman, from the import er, to the consumer constitute the cost ol lite goods to ihe consumers. Taking 25 per cent. f r charges and profits of the im porter, and 3;i per cent for the retail merchant, who sells to thecomsumer; and the following calculation will show the probable amount which the importers and intermediate agents will draw from the con sumers of their goods, to reimbuise them selves for the amount of the revenue they pay into the treasury, with their ordinary profi:s. The importers will pay for du ties - $2S,943,335 Add for charges and profits 25 percent. - . - - 7,235,S33J lhn.L.,.,.1 .1.11 .1 I- i 36,179,16S3 12,059,7222 Add for retail merchants 33 J per cent, ... Making - - S4,23S,S9l Which is 519,295,556 more than the a mountto be paid into the treasury. Before I proceed further, it becomes im portant to fix upn the probable effect of the duties in the home market; on the one hand, it his been held that a duty will not enhance the price at home, but w ill dimin ish the cost in the foreign m arket to the extent of the duty; on ll. e other, that it will increase the price in Ihe home market to the same extent If the first position be true, the idea ol protection is a humbug; and, according to ihe other, the notion of countervailing duties is a gross delusion. The truth is, no doubt, that the duties are fell both in the home and foreign mnrke's, but mote sensibly in the former. The re lative extent must be, in a great deree, con jectural. The proposed duties will average about 35 per cent., and upon many protect ed articles range from 40 lo GO and 70 per cent, and, in some cases, mount as high as from 100 to 150, and, perhaps, 200 per cent. ; and will probably be equivalent, on an average, to more than 20 per cent, in the home market. But, not !u err against the other side of the question, I will say 20 per cent. Assuming, then, that, but for the duties on articles coming in competition with home manufactures they might be purchas ed by the retail merchants, who supply the consumers, for at least 20 per cent, less, it is cleir they will have that effect upon do mestic character. Now, ihe value 0f the domestic manufactures, according to the last censu, has been variously estimated but generally at more th in four hundred millions of dollars; but I will take it to b that amount, after deducting the value of the exported manufactures. Twenty per cent, off, will be sixty-six millions and two thirds, which sum will he added, by the effect of the duties in our market, to what would otherwise be the market value of our domestic fabrics; and is the bounty likely to result to the manufacturers from the proposed bill. But this is not the whole extent to which the community-will be affected. The 400,000,000 (the esti mated value of the domestic manufactures) must be regarded as the cost in the hands of the retailers, for whom 33$ per cent, may be added for charges and profits paid by consumers; and, of course, 332 per cent, added to the 66,666,6664 being S22,222, 222, and making, in the aggregate, the sum of S5SS,8SS,8S$, will show the pro bable extent to which the consumers will be affected in regard to domestic manufac tures nearly $5 per head for every hu man being in the United States. I have proceeded upon the supposition that all of the manufactured articles are protected by J the duties to the extent of 20 per cent. Some would have but little competition, if meetlect of the duties were removed; but, as most of the protected.articles, in all pro bability, derive a greater benefit than 20 per cent in the home market, a fair allow ance for such manufactures as are protected to a very limited extent will not, I persuade myself, materially vary the general result The estimates I have ventured to submit give some ideiof the whole extent to which the people of the United States will likely be affected in the manufactures they use, by the enormous duties proposed by the bill. The difference between that a" mount, and what would result from a sys tem of duties in conformity with the com promise act, will furnish some probable conclusion as to the extent to which we shall be affected by a departure from that act. I think I may safely assume that the proposed duties will produce an effect upon the home market beyond that which du ties, according to the compromise, would produce equivalent to 10 per cent. If so. .S4 1,444,444$ is the sum to which we shall he subjected, over and above that which would be the incidental effect of the com promise; and, together with upwards of seven millions in the imports consumed, make, in the whole, more than fifty mil lions as an approximation of the onerous effects of the system of duties now propos ed. The amount seems to be large, but it is short of the truth; the premises upon which the calculation is based being, in general, much too favorable to the manu facturers. Of that, however, every on will judge for himself. If it be asked, why has not a similar system produced more obvious effects upon the face of socie ty, I answer, in the first place, that it is a fact exhibited by the public records, that the amount of revenue paid into the publir treasury from the 4ih of March, 179, to the 31st of December, 1S40, exclusive of the public lands, is SS03,S65,4S7 09, (see Account of Receipts and Expenditures for 1840, pnges 242 and 243;) and that, al though we know that amount has been paid by the people, together with the charges and profits of the merchants upon the a mount derived from customs, (746, 923, 302 02,) and has been expended among the public creditors, and those engaged in the public service, yet none have been able to perceive and point out very distinctly the effects upon the face of society, though they have been more or less felt at differ ent times in the progress of the Govern ment. But I insist that sufficient symp toms have been exhibited, under the oper ation of the system, in the depressed con dition of the Southern portion of the Con federacy, and in the accumulated wealth of the manufacturing districts of Massachu setts and Rhode Island, to show that the system is unequal and unjust in its opera tion. Besides, the bounties it confers upon some branches are counteracted by the bur dens it imposes in favor of others. Whether ihe immense amount transfer red from the consuming portion of our population, who are not benefitted by ihe system, to the manufacturers, who are, will render iheir pursuits more profitable than those that are unprotected, is a con troverted point. The argument on the part of the manufacturers is, that the pro tective duties proposed by the bill are ne cessary to enable them to do as well. Now, admitting the proposition to be true, is it not clear thai the vast amount transferred by the subtle and indirect operation of the syrstem, from the unprotected lo the pro tected classes, is so much of the profits, or, rather, production of the capital and labor of the former, taken and given to the latter, to enable them to do what would otherwise be a sinking business, to that extent? for is it not the effect of the protective system to enjoin upon all consumers to purchase of the manufacturers goods to ihe amount of al least $400,000,000; which, but for the system of duties proposed by the bill, in 1 lie present state of the manufactures of the world, might be procured for something like eighty-eight millions of dollars less annually7; and, accordingto duties based on the compromise, for something like forty four millions less? If my premises ate not more unfavorable to the manufacturing in terest than the ti nth will warrant, the con clusion is inevitable. The great question, then, presents itself to the statesman and the political economist, whether the bene fits dispensed by the system are equivalent to the loss to which the capital and labor of the unprotected classes are subjected to say nothing of the injustice of making their capital and labor tributary to the manufacturers. The advantages claimed for the system are these: that it cheapens the manufactur ed article; that it gives us a home market for our surplus productions; and that, in the contingency of war, it will enable us to j procure such articles as necessarily enter inlo our consumption, and some of which may then be indispensable, which other wise we might be unable to obtain except upon very unfavorable terms. It is true that the prices of most articles manufactured in the country are lower than they were when the protective policy com menced. But to ascribe this to the system, would be inconsistent wiih the main ground upon which its ad vocates ask for protective duties. Far more important causes hive been the chief eh ment lhat have led to thh result. Since the termination of ihe wars consequent upon the French Revolution, and during th : progress of our protective policy, there has been a v ist accession of labor and capital to manufactures, as well as all ihe other pe .ireful pursuits, not only in Gr-at Britain, but upon the continent of Europe. In France, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, and in some of the Geinnn states, (particularly Saxony,) under ihe wise provisions and benign influence of the Prussian commercial league, manufactures have been proseculed to a considerable x tent. Russia, Spain, and some of the Ital lan States, hive, for some yars, paid more attention io the subject than former ly. Dining the same period, the pr .gress of ihe arts and sciences has introduced wonderful improveme its in the labor sav ing machinery connected with manufactu ring pursuits. The enlarged production and cheapness of the raw material, too which enters into many of the most impor tant fabricks, and the superior facilities of transportation, not only between differeni countries, but different parts of the same country, ar e among the chief causes which have reduced the prices of manufactured articles even lower in other countries than 'hey are with us as the fact lhat protec five duties ;re claimed for our domestic manufactures incuntestibly proves. The argument in favor of a home mar ket is generally much overrated. The i dea is sought to be impressed upon ihe country, thai, in case the protective policy is abandoned, the manufacturing establish ments must be discontinued, and all those of our population employed in manufactures and trades amounting lo 791,739 persons be ihrown upon ihe other pursuits, (chiefly agriculture,) thereby overstocking ihem, and rendering them unprofitable. The idea ceases to have weight, as soon as it is attentively considered. For it must be observed that, in the array of numbers held up to our view, are included all sorls of tradesmen and artisans such as house carpenters, ship-builders, cabinet-makers, stone-masons, bricklayers, painters, and a great number of tradesmen not dependent upon the system, but who, in common with others, are subjected to its burdens; and lhat those employed in the occupations which it is its principal object to favor, are comparatively few. Conned with this consideration the fact, that, in many of ihe manufacturing pursuits, the greatest num ber, by far, consists of women and children, and the idea so assiduously pressed upon the public attention is seen to be a mere scarecrow. The other pursuits have noth ing to fear, even if manufactures should be abandoned. Only a small additional num ber would be distributed among ihe various other pursuits: all would consume as much then as now. That the agriculturists in the immediate neighborhood of ihe manufacturing estab lishments find a convenient market for their surplus productions, is a fact which I readily concede; but this advantage is over estimated, and diminishes, as ihe distance from ihe various establishments increases, until ihe benefits of the market area poore quivalent for the burdens which ihe sys tem imposes. In a national view, the sys tem is, upon the whole, prejudicial to the market for our staple productions especi ally of cotton, and per haps of flour. The price of Mich productions must be mainly governed by the m n ke price of the com mercial world; for if the price, in any country, becomes so high as to afford a bet ter profit (cost of transportation, insurance, &c, being considered) than our own mar ket, such country will be sought by our surplus productions; and, on the contrary, should our markets offer similar induce ments, tlvy will attract the surplus produce of foreign countries; so that a general level will be preserved. And this is felt in the interior of the several commercial rointries having intercourse with each other; fur, should a supply of flour be needed by an exiensive manufacturing establishment, (in Maine or New Hampshire, for instance.) & could not he purchased in the neighbor hood for the market-price in Boston or New York, including cosl of transporta tion, &c, (now inconsiderable, on account of the mullipl ed and improved facilities of internal communication,) it would likely be ordered from one or the o'her of those places. So that the established prices of the great exporting and importing cities, which govern & control the market-pnees of 'heir respective countries, and are them selves regulated by the markets of ll ecom mercial world, will, in general, form the standard of prices at the manufacturing es tablishments. Now, when it is consider-' ed tha' it is the very object of the protect ive system to shackle trade and limit im portations, it is obvious lhat it tends greatl to depress the price of our surplus pi oduc lions in foreign markets, and to reduce ihe general standard of prices by which the products furnished to the manufacturing ' estahl.shrmnts n ust be mail ly n gnlated. In a national point of ew, the effect is greater to depress lhan o elevate prices, and occ si )ns a national loss, independent of the burdens which, in other respects, it imposes. ll is certainly a mat'er of some import ance thai we shou d be able to manufacture, for ourselves, such articles as are indispen sable in time of war the implements, ma chinery, and supplies uecessiry to arm, e quip, and suppori armies, fleets, and navies, if a reduction of ihe duties to a revenue standard, for an economical administration ol the tiovernment, should bring about an aoaudonnieui of the manufacture ot such anicles, the question would present itself, whetli. r it would be good policy to submit to the utuqualand oppressive exactions of the system forever ; or, by descending to a mere revenue standard lor an economical ad.uinistralion, say nineteen or twenty millions, including ihe proceeds of ihe pub lic lauds,) io ihro v ourselves upon other nations loi our supplies of such articles, tint the slate and condition of our manufac tures ol ihe necessary articles in lime of War are such as to forbid the belief that any sucn consequence would follow ; and, when connected with the ad vantages of our local siiuation lor peace, and the pacific charac ter of our policy, deprive the argument of that lorcu which, in toe infancy of our manufactures, it might, to some extent, nave possessed. Being in close proximity with but iwj pjwrrs, (die one on t.ur Nun hern, and die olher on our Southern border,) and possessing with the one a kindred feeling, with similar institutions, and prosecuting a similar policy; and with liie other carrying on a most exiensive c iniiiiLive, and capable of injuring each other to ihe gie uesi extent, and having, therefore, ihe strongest motives to preserve tiie relations of peace, th" prospect of fre quent annoyance by ihe evils of war is too remote to indme us to tolerte such a sys tem. Such, sir, is a ju-t view of ihe fa vored policy of gentlemen to whom L stand opposed, upon the ground on w hich they themselves are disposed to place it. The supposed advantages are delusive; while there can be no doubt that it will subject the community, except the manufacture-, (and, indeed, even a portion of them,) as 1 shall insist, unnecessarily to the payment of an immense sum annually amounting, probabl)7, to not less than fifty millions, in the vast quantity of goods consumed. But, Mr. Chairman, it is not true lhat the higti duties proposed by the bill are necess ry to enable the manufacturers to proseeete th ir business, as 1 shall now at tempt to show. It is the tendency of high duties lo induce many who are disadvanta ge usly situated lo embark in manufactur ing pursuit. They are without capital, perhaps; and ilutr eagerness to embark in the pursuit, leads them to borrow, and to select sit s combining so few ail vantages in reference lo water po ver, building materi als, and the materials which enter lTito the compociton of their manufactures, or are necessary in their production which, but for the eager ness thus excited, would have been overlooked. This is probably the case in ihe manufacture of iron, more than in any other brain h in which the distance of ihe site selected from the ore lo be used, the quantity and richness of Ihe ore, and the ad vantages and disadvantages of pro curing the requisite supply of fuel, have the most important influence upon the pro fit anil loss. To many now engaged in some branches of manufacture, and who may be induced to engage in them, under such disadvantages, their business will prove unprofitable, not witlanding the proposed duties; and, as to some, in all probability, no system of duties can pre vent an ultimate failure. They can never compete with home competition. It i from such quarlers among the manufactur ing community that the cry of distress is first heard which, when likely to influ ence the legislation of Congress, from mo tives of interest is re-echoed by others. In every get eral system of duties, (and per haps more so in regard to one framed with an eve lo protection, as is the case before us,) in siuie branches, the duties imposed to protect ihem are counterbalanced, (and, in some instances, more than counterbal anced,) by other duties for the protection of other branches, upn such at tides as en ter inlo the composition of the manufactur ed article. To illustrate my position, as it is a simple case, 1 will take the manufacture of shot Those engag d ir the manufact ure of that aiticle have a duty of four Cents p' r pound upon shot, lo enable ihem to get a be-lei price than they could other wise command, to reimburse them for the additional cost to which they rnay be sub-. jecte I by the duty ol lhr e cents per pound on lead in favor of the lead miner ; anu to which the four cents upon shot, allowing ;or dross in i mining the lead, is supposed to be about equal. It is very obvious that a reduction or the duty upon shot would he of no moment to those engaged in that manufacture, if a corresponding reduction upon the lead they use should accompany v it ; i J !