網頁圖片
PDF
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

officers, who are under the pay and eat the bread of this Government, strange as it may seem, concur in this opinion, that frauds are perpetrated, the public treasure wasted, and the laws of the country daily trampled under foot. It cannot be necessary to add to such conclusive evidence; and I will proceed to show in what manner these frauds are perpetrated, that we may understand how to apply a remedy to this crying evil. Your laws now impose upon most kinds of imported merchandise what is usually called an ad valorem duty; that is, a certain rate per cent on the value of the goods in the market where they are purchased. Consequently, the more they cost, the more duty they pay, and hence the importer has a motive to bring them into the custom-house at as low a rate as possible, that he may escape the duties. The law also provides that the importer shall, when he enters his goods, deliver to the collector an invoice of them, containing the quantity and value, to which he makes oath, and upon which the goods are assessed. If, therefore, he puts down cloth which costs a dollar a yard at fifty cents, he escapes half the duty, unless the fraud is detected. This mode of imposing duties has given rise to frauds by false invoices, in two ways; first, by an undervaluation of goods, and, secondly, by short measure. And as I do not desire the committee to repose eonfidence without evidence, I will proceed to lay before them some of the leading facts in my possession. I derive them not from manufacturers or farmers, who are said to be deeply interested in a rigid execution of the revenue laws, but from a source that will not be discredited, because of its attachment to either of these branches of industry, from a document laid before us by the twenty thousand memorialists from the city of New York, who are on the spot, and eye-witnesses of the evasions of the law practised at the custom-house in that city. This document has been long in print, and, as far as my knowledge extends, stands unrefuted—nay, unquestioned. In the statements, the names of persons are purposely omitted, but they can be furnished to any gentleman desirous of seeing them. ... I am informed that they are among the most worthy and respectable inhabit. ants of that city, and shall therefore assume that the wit. nesses tell the truth, leaving it to others to impeach their statements, if it can be done. They represent, that, by the conjoint operation of a systematic evasion of the revé. nue laws and sales at auction, they have been pressed and borne down, until many have been forced to the verge

wf ruin; and they give the following as some of the me

thods employed by those who disregard all moral considerations, and flinch not at perjury, to shun the provisions of law. A merchant of New York ordered two thousand F. of goods from a British manufacturer, of a particuar description, and after F. of his own, purchasing them at as low a rate as they could be had in the British market. He shipped them home under an expectation of realizing the fruits of his enterprise; but when his goods arrived, he found, to his o, the same individual of whom he purchased, had o: by the same vessel five thousand pieces of the same kind of goods, to be sold by his agent, and that these goods were offered lower than he could afford to sell. Not comprehending how this could be done without loss, he investigated the matter, and found that the five thousand pieces had been entered at the custom-house from five to eight shillings aterling lower on the piece than he had paid for the two thousand pieces; and the consequence was, that he lost about two thousand dollars, while the British manufacturer made a handsome profit by the fraud in his invoice. * Another merchant bought a quantity of goods entitled to debenture, and, after exporting them, he applied for the drawback, and found it smaller than he anticipated, which led to inquiry; and he ascertained where the goods had been bought in Europe, and that they had been passed at

the custom-house at from twenty-five to thirty per cent less than the cost in Europe. Another merchant in New York became the purchaser of goods, and, suspecting all was not right, pursued a similar course of ..". and ascertained, by the clearest proof, that they had been entered at the custom-house at from twenty to thirty per cent below cost. In former periods, when our merchants were distinguished as a class of high-minded, honorable men, conducting their business upon fair and just principles, it was usual to sell at an agreed rate per cent. of advance upon the invoice by which the goods were entered, which was exhibited to the purchaser. That mode of transacting business, which subserved the purposes of honest men, has fallen into disuse, and been superseded by an artful contrixance well adapted to disguise frauds. An invoice is made up to enter the goods at the eustom-house, wherein they are greatly undervalued; and when it has performed this office, its work being finished, it is consigned to some dark pigeon hole, there to sleep, and another paper, sometimes called an invoice, and sometimes a statement, is exhibited to purchasers, as containing the actual cost of goods. The first is manufactured to . the officers of the customs, the last to conceal perjury. Several mistakes have happened, which have exposed this infamous practice to the gaze of the public. “A foreign importer at New York sold a package of oods at a certain advance on the cost. Shortly after making the sale, he discovered that he had sold at an advance on the fictitious cost, or, in other words, on the invoice by which the goods had been entered at the custom-house; he went to the buyer, and informed him of the mistake, and insisted that he should make up the difference between the actual and the false cost. The buyer was surprised at the novelty of the request, refused to allow any thing, and told him, if he persisted in the request, he would expose him to the collector of the customs. The importer pocketed the affront and went about his business.” In another instance, a merchant bought a quantity of goods at sixty-five per cent... advance on the sterling cost. Soon after the buyer bad left the store of the seller, he was informed by the latter that the goods could not be delivered, because he had made a mistake in selling them by the wrong invoice. The buyer replied that he would take them by the prices at which they had been entered at the custom-house; but the seller declined this, saying his instructions were to sell at an advance upon prices put down in a paper which had the form of an invoice, but was called a statement, in which the prices were charged one hun: dred per cent above the invoice upon which the duty had been paid at the custom-house; that is, goods charged in the custom-house invoice at twelve dollars a piece, were put down in the statement at twenty-four dollars a piece. Other examples of this class of frauds could be cited, but it would be a waste of time, for the same authority says: It is a common custom, and one well understood among merchants, that many foreign importers, resident in this country, are in the constant habit of receiving two invoices of each parcel of goods, one for the custom-house, and the other to sell by. It adds, that, among the importers of woollens, it is a common custom to enter goods on an invoice made out expressly for that purpose, and much below the actual cost, averaging probably not less than thir. ty-three and a third per cent. In proof of this, and also that goods are entered by false invoices, the following fact is given: Broadcloth, entered at the custom-house as costing from four to five shillings sterling the yard under the tariff of 1824, was frequently bought in at auction by the importer at two dollars and twenty-five to two dollars and fifty cents the yard, toes. cape from a sacrifice of the property l—yet, if the invoiee was honest, these prices would afford enormous profit. Another instance among many shall be named. A mer* *

* --

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

chant ordered a quantity of woollens of an English manu. facturer. In the same vessel which brought them out, came a shipment of goods of the same .# and quality, sent by the manufacturer himself on his own account, which were entered at the custom house so much below what the merchant gave, that the former made twenty-five

r cent on the sales, while the latter lost ten per cent.

will not weary the patience of the committee by multiplying the proofs, for these facts show the most glaring, palpable, barefaced fraud and imposition, as well as an ut. ter degradation of moral character, for they are necessa. rily accompanied and sustained by the most deliberate per

Jury. f do not know, indeed, that any one questions this violation of truth and law; for it seems to be admitted that English agents and manufacturers are right when they declare our custom house affords the greatest facilities for evading the revenue. I stated that invoices were also false in another partigular—in failing to give a true account of the quantity. The same authority gives well authenticated instances of goods entered for twelve yards the piece, which were sold in market at from fourteen to fifteen yards the piece; by . fraud, sixteen per cent of the goods at least escaped uty. I will now state a fact, which will show that frauds in the woollen trade are perpetrated to a most alarming extent. It is known that the revenue law of 1828 establishes a gradation of prices, on which the duty is assessed; for example, a square yard of cloth costing thirty-three and a third cents, and under fifty cents, is considered as cost ing fifty cents; and a yard actually costing thirty-four cents, pays the same duty as one costing fifty cents; so, also, a yard costing fifty-one cents, or any sum between that and one dollar, pays the same duty as a yard costing a dollar; and a yard costing one hundred and one cents, or any sum between that and two dollars and fifty cents, pays the same duty as one costing two dollars and fifty cents, and so on. The lowest duty is forty-five per cent on these arbitrary sums, and the highest is at least three times that amount. The natural operation of the law would be to bring those classes of goods into the market which pay the lowest duty, and to exclude those which pay the highest; but I am well assured that it has produced no such effect; for goods which pay the highest duty are as abundant in the market as they ever were; and there is no visible disproportion between the price they bear and the price of those which pay the lowest duty. In fact, the trade goes on, apparently, precisely as it did before the passage of the law. If the provisions of the act were executed, this could not be so; and we need no better or stronger proof to show that systematic fraud pervades the woollen trade throughout, as an inequality in the duty would produce a like inequality in the value of the foreign productions in our market. In confirmation of this view of the matter, as well as of the existence of frauds, there have been exhibited in this House specimens of woollens, which were invoiced for entry at the custom-house at one dollar the yard, aud are selling by the piece at five dollars the yard in the largest markets of the country. Sir, the facts disclosed are remarkable in their character, especially as they show that these gross evasions of law are in a measure legalized by passing the goods through the custom-house. hether they are carried on so boldly and successfully through the negligence of public officers, or because they are unable to discharge the duties imposed on them, I shall not undertake to determine; but I am in possession of some facts which go to show that, from one cause or the other, there is a very imperfect, knowledge among the officers of what passes through their hands, and, of course, an imperfect collection of the revenue. - *

[blocks in formation]

1, and comparing the goods with No.1 in the invoice, it was found the goods did not correspond to the invoice; and, as he was about ordering them to be reshipped, it occurred

to him there might be a mistake in numbering the cases; he, therefore, opened No.3, and found the goods answered the description of No. 1 of the invoice. Here was no fraud; but it is manifest that the cases could not have been so closely examined at the custom-house as to learn what they contained, or the error would have been dete ed. So, too, the chairman of the committee has inform us that a British factor was indicted for frauds in th portation of goods, during the last summer in N and, under a sense of his guilt and infamy, out. has not since been seen in the United States. But we not indebted to the vigilance of the officers of the cust house for his detection. No, sir; for aught but, he might have carried on his traffic in fraud a to this day, had not a misunderstanding and a q between him and one acquainted with his scandal duct, which occasioned the disclosure, and a prese by the grand jury. * - no o, would douis, to any one; and, therefore here take occasion to say that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MALLARx] has declared his belief that the collector of New York exerts himself to discharge his duty faithfully, but has hitherto been frustrated for the want of sufficient power to execute the laws according to their spirit and just interpretation. If this be so, it is time efficient measures were adopted; it is time these abuses were re formed; and this custom-house, which seems to be but a railroad to smugglers, was organized in such a manner as to arrest the j. of vice and corruption. If there be not force enough there to di e the arduous duties required, let us send additional aid, or at once repealou statutes: for the consequences resulting from the presen state of things are too injurious to tolerated. "The American importing merchants (I speak of the woolled trade) have, as the gentleman from Vermont has conclusively shown, been forced from their business, or overwhelmed with bankruptcy; so that but a small remnant of a large body of valuable and high-minded men is left to recount the tales of their embarrassments, while their business has been usurped by a class of unprincipled foreigners, who consider it meritorious to violate their oaths, to cheat the Government out of its revenues, and to trample its laws under foot. The dignity and insulted honor of the nation demand a remedy for this evil; our oppressed citizens, robbed of their just rights by an illicit trade, demand the parental protection of the Government. But the fatal consequences reach beyond the merchant, and strike at the prosperity of the manufacturing interest. We have seen the establishments of our country fall, one after another, victims to the capital and treachery of foreigners, who have stained our honor and stolen our birthright. They reach alike all our great interests; for you might as well say that the giant oak of the forest will not crush the shrubbery under it when it falls, as to say the overthrow of the merchants and manufacturers will not prostrate the farmers, and mechanics. We live together as a great family, and, by an exchange of the products of labor, we are fed, clothed, and lodged. The farmer has wants beyond the produce of his land; the manufacturer and mechanic have wants beyond the produce of their labor; each supplies the other out of the fruits of his industry: and thus it is, a whole community is made com: fortable and happy o: demand for the produce of the labor of each other. Foreign agents and §. this system of frauds, break in upon us, and pari dustry of the country. They offer merchal farmers, but will take ing they They offer it to our mechanics, but :

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

of employment. They offer it to our manufacturers, but the policy of their country is so regulated as to keep our products out of her market. While Great Britain pursues ihis selfish course, of which we have no right to complain, if I can understand the tone of her newspapers and periodicals, they hold it to be not only meritorious, but pa. triotic, to violate the revenue laws of this country; and if I can understand the state of sentiment in Parliament, it is far from discountenancing smuggling. While this state of things exists in that country; while this determination to force themselves upon us, regardless of our policy and of our laws, continues, we have no alternative left, but to meet it with energy, and protect the rights of those who have reposed confidence in us. As things now are, he who commits the most fraud, reaps the most benefit. Sir, I cannot persuade myself there is an individual in this House, who will advocate the state of things I have described. Your laws ought either to be repealed or executed; and my belief is, that the interests of the country require they should be enforced, and that some such plan as that proposed by the bill is a suitable remedy for the evil. But the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDufrie] entertains, as he says, an opinion widely different, and has roposed, as an amendment, the repeal of the laws of 828 and 1824: in other words, he proposes to reduce the duties. I do not comprehend in what way this is to restrain men from injuring us, who are regardless of oaths, and destitute of | moral sentiment ; men who hold it meritorious to cheat and patriotic to commit perjury. You cannot appeal to the consciences of such men with any hope of success; it is to their fears, you must address ourself; you must operate upon their interests, and make it difficult and dangerous for them to pursue their career of wickedness; anything short of this will be worse than unavailing; money is the idol of such men, and gain, whether great or small, affords sufficient temptation to evil; and they must be made to understand that the chances of loss are greater than the chances of gain. The gentleman has indeed had the candor to acknowledge that his object is not so much to correct abuses, as to revise and modify the revenue system, by reducing the duties generally; and his long impassioned argument has been addressed to us with the apparent intent to convince us of the propriety of adopting such a measure. I did hope this bill would be suffered to rest on its own merits, and receive the approbation or disapprobation of the House according to its unbiased judgment. I did hope the exciting subject of modifying the tariff of duties generall j not be brought forward to embarrass it ; but, as the gentleman has thought the opposite course wise and expedient, I shall meet it, not with a detailed examination of his elaborate speech, but of the leading propositions on which his discursive argument was founded. If the premises can be proved false; the conclusions must be erroneous. I am aware that this subject, though one of deep interest to the country, one on which hang its prosperity and ha piness, is, in its details, dry, and calls for an 3xercise of patience on the part of the committee; yet I hope to be indulged with their attention, though I may fail to reward it. The tariff, as it is called, which means nothing more than the revenue system which has existed, under various modifications ever since the formation of the constitution. has occupied much of public attention for several years ast. The tone of complaint from the South, against the aws, has been loud, vehement, o ". i. The support of, or opposition to, the policy, has almost become #. test of o: ; and as often as the subject has been agitated here, (and it is up in one form or another every session,) it brings with it great ardor and power of argument in the discussion, from all sides of the House. The advocates of the policy have contended that, since

the peace of 1815, we are placed in a new condition, the nations of Europe having resumed that trade which fell into our hands by the chances of war, and driven us back upon our own resources; that a demand for the ducts of the farmer no longer exists to any considerable extent in Europe; and, if labor cannot be so employed here, as to supply our most pressing wants, we should be poor and miserable: for it matters little whether a man have the surplus products of the earth on his hands or not, if he have no way of disposing of them so as to meet his neces. sities. On the other hand, it has been contended that our true policy lies in a different direction; and we have been invited to look at the glowing picture of former days, when our trade and commerce spread over the face of the inhabited earth, and men acquired princely fortunes al. most without an effort. We have been told that these channels of commerce are not dried up, but are still open to mines of wealth, if we are not so blind to our interests as to shut our eyes against the truth. Those who have pressed such considerations upon us, have been asked where these avenues to prosperity are? Where can the farmer send his grain, his flour, his beef, his pork, and other products of his labor Does England take them? No. Does France No. Does any part of Europe 1 No. not to such an extent as to afford him any encouragement to pursue his business. Europe feeds her own population —she sells the products of her labor, but does not buy such as she can produce. Those, therefore, who look for a return of prosperity from that source, dream. They have waited, and joi. in vain, without the pations of Europe change theirP. Agriculture is the foundation of all commerce; and he who proves that it is our wisest policy to become all farmers, must first show where we can sell the fruits of our labor—we cannot sell to each other if we all work at that business, because we then supply ourselves. Again: It has been urged that our revenue would fail. and we should be compelled to resort to direct taxes, to support the Government and pay the national debt. Predictions of this kind were o: in the bold tone of abso. lute confidence; and ardent appeals were made to the F. to repudiate a policy which would take from la: r its hard earnings to supply the public treasury. Time has falsified these prophecies, and the complaint now is that the Government will be ruined by the surplus funds in the treasury, because every portion of the Union is scrambling to obtain, in one form or another, its portion of the money. Again: It was predicted that, where duties have been imposed, goods would rise to an exorbitant price, and the consumer be heavily burdened; but here again the prediction has failed, for the consumer has found his supplies cheapened. Gentlemen are much puzzled with these results, but still condemn the tariff with as much zeal and vehemence as if every prophecy had been fulfilled to the letter. They seem to be aware of the embarrassments they must encounter in establishing the old notion that a duty is a tax to the amount of it upon the consumer of foreign productions, for they are met with the fact that an increase of duties has not produced that result. The gentleman from South Carolina, being aware that these objections are not easily surmounted, seems to have discarded the old theory as false, and has introduced a doctrine new in many of its features and consequences I, for the first time, saw the substance of it in a document from his State, called “An Exposition and Protest," which emanated from the Legislature, and which I read with too much haste to remember with great accuracy. The theory is strenuously maintained, that duties are taxes, althoug

goods are made cheaper under their operation; and to

carry the doctrine out, it is asserted that the old idea that

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

it follows that the planters pay two-thirds of the whole

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

revenue; that is, sixteen millions of dollars out of twentyfour millions, which is about the annual amount of revenue. This burden, he says, falls on less than three millions of population, while the remaining nine millions pay only eight millions of revenue, because they export only to that amount. If this be true—if sixteen millions of revenue are drawn from the earnings of less than three millions of our population annually, I agree that the burdens are greatly disproportionate—that the South are grievously oppressed, and it is the duty of this Government to afford immediate relief. But, sir, the very statement itself strikes the ear as incredible. Is it true? Can it be true that less than three millions of persons pay sixteen millions of annual tax? If so, the planter has a business yielding such a profit as our people are unacquainted with. I say, no people since the foundation of the earth ever did sustain such a burden for a succession of years; and as the doctrine is at va. riance with all received notions, it ought to be sustained by strong proofs, before it gains credence. The gentleman says, it is self-evident; but, to my dull apprehension, it is far, very far, from being so; and I regret that the evidence which makes it so clear to him, has not been more fully stated. I will, if the committee will lend me their patience, endeavor to point out some of the obstacles which must be surmounted to establish this doctrine. To disembarrass the question, I shall follow the example of the gentleman, by throwing out of the way the machinery of trade, and considering the planter as the exporter, Suppose, then, he ships a cargo of cotton for the English market, where it is sold. The theory of the gentleman is, that he must re. eeive goods in pay, for he cannot command specie; and if these goods are subject to a duty when they arrive in this country, the amount paid at the custom-house is a tax upon the cotton itself, as a raw material, and the planter actually loses it, as much as if an excise were laid upon it before it was shipped; and I understood him to say, and repeat, that it made no difference with the planter, whether the tax, as he called it, was imposed directly on the cotton in his hands before it was shipped, or on the goods, as it now is, at the custom-house. This doctrine, he says, applies to all imported goods thus purchased, be they consumed by whom they may. I will now state his reasons given in support of this theory, as I understood them. He said, that if the manufacturer in England could raise the price of his manufactured articles, as duties are imposed, he would then throw the burden on the consumer; but he finds himself unable to do this, and turns round on his heel, and takes the amount out of the grower of the raw material. The manufacturer says, you must receive your pay in goods,of some sort or other, in our markets; we cannot raise the price, and must take the duty out of the cotton; and thus the price of the raw material is reduced, and the earnings of the planter taken from him. Being aware that the assent of the holder of cotton is necessary to a bargain of this sort, the gentleman provided for that difficulty, by asserting, in unqualified terms, that the purchaser is enabled to accomplish this end, because he controls the market, and establishes the terms on which he will buy. Now, let us look at this proposition, and see what consequences must follow, if it be well founded. The mauufacturer in England controls the market, and assesses

on the raw material shipped from this country, whatever duties may be collected at our custom-houses on any kind of goods that may be purchased with the avails. Is it true that the purchasers in the market control it? Every man who does business, feels that the market is controlled by another and greater power; he feels that commodities are dear or cheap, according as the supply is great or small, and that it is the supply which fixes the price, and not the will of the buyer. o it depends on the will of the buyer, he might as well purchase at one cent the pound as at twelve. Again: If the buyer has the power to fix the price, and make such allowances and deductions as he pleases, for duties imposed on English manufactures by our tariff, that power will enable him to deduct any other duties or taxes to which his business may be subject; and he would, of course, deduct a duty of six per cent. upon cotton which is imposed in England, and paid into the treasury of that kingdom. He can provide for this with much greater facility, than for the duties on the various kinds of goods which are bought with the avails of cotton, and exported to this country. If he has the power to provide for the one, he surely has for the other. If the planter carries, rice to the same market, it is subject to the same controlling influences, and the duties which are three dollars and thirty-three cents the hundred, may be deducted from the value, and thrown upon him in the same way. So also of tobacco, which pays a duty of three shillings sterling on the pound, which is much more than the article is worth; and consequently the planter would upon this theory lose his produce, and be brought into debt for the balance of the duty. This singular theory discloses a new princiciple in finance, which must come into high estimation; for, if the doctrine is well founded, a nation may so ulate its trade, as to draw all its revenues from the foreign States with which it deals. The next consequence, which obviously results from this doctrine, is, that our tariff bears with the same force upon all foreign countries which bring cotton, rice, and tobacco into the English market, as it does upon the southern States. The planter of the South meets, as competitors in that market, the planter of Brazil, the planter of Egypt, the planter of the East Indies, and the planter of the West Indies. If the duties are taken out of the raw material, because of our tariff, then there ought to be a discrimination in the price of cotton from different portions of the world; and it should bear a higher or a lower price, according as the duties on manufactured articles are higher or lower in the country from which it is brought. If, for example, the duties in Brazil on British merchandise are fifteen per cent, and here they are fifty per cent, then American cotton ought to sell much lower than Brazilian. So, if there be no duty on British merchandise in her own colonies of the East and West Indies, then the difference ought to be still greater. But no such discrimination exists; for cotton of the same quality bears in the market the same price, from whatever country it may come; and it follows, that, if the tariff causes such a heavy loss on the raw material to the planter of the United States, it depresses the cotton of Brazil and Egypt in the same ratio— nay, it occasions the same disastrous consequences to the colonies of England herself, for it levels all cotton to the same standard. Upon this principle, if Brazil were to run her duties on imports above ours, her laws would at once bear u £his country, and reduce the price still lower. If then, the planter of the South, as the gentleman says, is borne down and ground into the dust by the tariff; if he is robbed of the fruits of his honest labor, and driven to desperation, it produces the same pernicious ef. feet upon the planters of other countries—for they get the same price, and no more; and that price is measured

out and regulated by our tariff. This, I believe, is giving

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

a wider scope to the operation of our laws, and diffusing their power more broadly, than has ever been imagined by the most enthusiastic opposer of the tariff. [Mr. McDUFFIE rose to explain, because he perceived [he said] that the gentleman from Massachusetts intended to answer his argument fairly. The gentleman had stated that cotton of the same quality bears the same price, come from where it might—agreed—but the southern planter receives goods on which he pays a duty of two hundred and fifteen per cent, while the planter of Brazil gets goods on which he pays only fifteen per cent; that is the reason why the southern planter is ground down and the other is not )

Mr. DAVIS resumed. I shall consider that by and by. I said, if the position of the gentleman is well founded, he proves that our tariff bears on all cotton-growing countries with the same weight as on the southern States, because the price of all cotton of the same quality, come from where it may, is the same. Now, if the duties are deducted from the raw material, and paid, as the gentleman asserts, by the grower, because the purchaser controls the market, then it is clear that less would be deducted from Brazilian cotton than from ours, and there would be a discrimination, in the price—a difference in the value; but I have shown that there is no difference, and the gentleman admits it. It would seem, therefore, to follow, that our duties on British merchandise do not regulate the price of cotton, and have little to do with it. [Mr. McDUFFIE again interposed to explain. His ar. gument was not that the Brazilian grower could not raise his price, but that the American grower could not..] I fear"I do not fully comprehend the gentleman from South Carolina. I was endeavoring to follow out his argument, and to show some of the difficulties he must surmount to maintain it. I understood him to state, in the outset, that exports pay the duties on imports; and to deduce as an inference from the fact, that the South paid into the treasury two-thirds of the revenue of the United States, be: cause the cotton, rice, and tobacco, raised and sent abroad by that portion of the Union, constitute two-thirds of the exports. I understood him also to declare, in the commencement of his speech, that the old notion, that the consumer of imported merchandise pays the duties, by giving an increased price for what he buys, was founded in mistake and misapprehension. In confirmation of these declarations, I understood him to say, and repeat, that it made no difference whether cotton, rice, and tobacco were taxed to the amount of sixteen millions of dollars in the hands of the growers, before they were shipped, or that sum was collected on imported merchandise, "... in foreign markets with the avails of the articles, for, in either case, the whole loss fell on the planter. From the assumption of these grounds by the gentleman, I thought I was justified in inferring that he meant to declare that the consumer did not pay the duty, but the grower of the raw material did; for I could not persuade myself into the belief that he meant to assert that less than three millions of inhabitants consumed forty million's worth of imported articles, while the remaining nine millions consumed only to the amount of twenty millions. I was led also to this conclusion, because the gentleman said that the manufacturer of England would throw the duty upon the consumer, by raising the price of the articles on which the duty was imposed, if he could, but he could not do it beeause he . not raise the price. Indeed, the whole course of his reasoning appeared to me to be based on the hypothesis that the price of the raw material is reduced in the market by the tariff, and thus the planter is subjected to great loss. I am not able to comprehend how the argument can be explained upon any other supposition, than that the price of the exports is reduced in the foreign market in the manner I have described; for, if this

tleman ean maintain that the South paid sixteen millious, or two-thirds of the annual revenue; for if the burden be not forced upon them in this manner, then they pay as consumers only; but the gentleman has repudiated this as a false notion. He must be aware, also, that the ratio of consumption and exportation is widely different; sot, admitting that less than three millions of our population furnish two-thirds of the exports, yet every body knows that the whole nation are consumers of imports, and probably the nine millions of persons who export none of the cotton, rice, and tobacco, are the greatest consumers of foreign merchandise, as they live in a colder climate, and have more wants. But, allowing that they consume only an equal quantity, the argument of the gentleman sails for, instead of consuming forty millions out of sixty, the South would then consume o, fifteen millious out of that amount. I say, therefore, that the main tion, that the South pay two-thirds of the oo:: they grow two-thirds of the exports, falls to the ground, unless it can be shown that they pay it in some other way that as consunders, But I will, for the present, dismiss this part of the sub. ject, and proceed to point out other obstacles, which must be surmounted in establishing the doctrine which the gen tleman appeared to me to contend for, and which is surely set up by the exposition and protest of the Legislature of his State. If the purchaser of raw cotton, and other exports in the English market, has the power imputed to him of con trolling the market in such manner as to reduce the value of our exports forty-five per cent, as is alleged, because we collect forty-five per cent on imports in this country; if he can thus, at pleasure, cut down the value of our sta. ples, then it follows, that he pockets the enormous profit of forty-five per cent, on all the vast consumption of cok ton goods in the British dominions, for on this consump: tion there is no impost, and there is no apology for re. ducing the price of the raw material which enters into it, because of our tariff. The reduction is to meet the duo ties here, and here only; but as it reaches all cotton, it produces this result. If it be true, as has been asserted, that the tariff causes a decline in the value of exports of forty-five per cent. ; and if it be true, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG) has alleged in his report on commerce, that it gives to the British manufac. turer a premium of eleven dollars and sixty cents on every piece of broadeloth worth two dollars per yard, the law of 1828, which seems to be in bad odor in England.

[blocks in formation]

kets must receive his pay in merchandise. Without stop. ping to question the soundness of this position, I will ask the attention of the committee to one or two considers: tions, which will show that no such process of reduction in price can take place. . A cargo of cotton is shipped to England, and there sold to a manufacturer of that mate. rial. The trade is not for goods, but money, which is perhaps to be expended in merchandise of fifty different kinds—some subject to no duty, some to a low one, and some to a high one. Now, sir, can any thing be plainer than that the purchaser enters into no negotiation about those duties; that he makes no terms of purchase con:

be not the ease, I am at a loss to understand how the gen

forming to them? Can any thing be more obvious than

ought to be esteemed by the people of that country as

Ánother objection to this kind of reasoning, is that it is

who exports the products of this country to foreign mar.

« 上一頁繼續 »