mestic manufacturer against the injury he might receive by the malicious or accidental introduction of goods, at a price below their cost: 312. That, though the protecting duty may be a bounty to the manufacturer, at the expense of the consumer, this is true only, whilst the manufacture is in its infancy. But when the duty is judiciously imposed, it soon fosters the manufacture into strength; prices fall, and the duty becomes a bounty to the consumer. But suppose the duty a bounty to the manufacturer; he is entitled to his turn of protection, which has long been extended to the commerce and agriculture of the nation: 313. That, the protecting duties enable this country to consume ten millions of dollars in value of southern products, which the northern manufacturers are enabled to pay for by the employment given to them. That if this market were destroyed, a substitute could not be found, inasmuch, as the goods manufactured from these products abroad, would amount to some thirty millions, for which the North has no exports wherewith to pay; and as the export of the foreign manufacturer is pushed to the utmost, he could not find another market. Consequently, the South would lose the whole, or the greater part, of the advantages derived from the present consumption of American manufacturers: 314. That, the import duty is not in effect an export duty; that, though, in some cases, it may, possibly, be assimilated to it, there is this difference; the export duty attaches itself to the article exported, inseparably, and if it reach an overstocked market, the amount of the export duty may be a clear deduction from the price of the article. But an import duty on the foreign article leaves the exporter of the domestic article free to purchase specie, or goods vendible at home at a profit: 315. That, it is not true, that, the producer pays the import duty, and that, he is in the same condition, as if he gave to the Government, paying a duty of forty per cent, 40 bales of imported merchandise. For, were such the fact, if the duty were 150 per cent, he would not only give to the Government his whole hundred bales, but would pay the value of 50 bales more. But, he sells his hundred bales, and receives for them, not only, their original cost, but the duty and a profit, upon every cent he may have expended, and gets for his hundred, the value of 170 bales. 316. If then, the producer, as producer, pays not the duty, he pays only, in the character of consumer, and in proportion, only, to his own consumption. Consequently, the duty does not operate upon him, unequally; he pays upon the same principle which affects every other citizen. 317. Nor, is it true, that, the South cannot avail herself of the benefits of a protective tariff, by engaging in the protected manufacture. The southern States abound in water power and in labour; and experience has taught, that the latter may be directed, advantageously, to manufactures. 318. Not only is the price of manufactured goods reduced by competition, but the price of agricultural products is enhanced by the creation of an extensive home market. The foreign market of the northern and middle agricultural States has been destroyed, and consequently all the population cannot be profitably employed in agricultural labours. Manufactures not only subtract, from agriculture, some three hundred thousand labourers, thereby diminishing the supply and increasing the demand for agricultural products, but giving profitable employment to these abstracted labourers, enables them to purchase a greater quantity of such product. Without manufactures, the agricultural producers might be increased, but the productions could find no market; 319. If such be the advantages of the tariff system, in peace, they are greatly increased in a state of war; for which sound wisdom requires a constant state of preparation. If we have not within our own country the means of supplying our wants, a state of war, cutting off foreign supply, must subject us to great privation. 320. It is not true, that, the repeal of the protecting duties, and the supply of our wants by foreign manufactures, would increase our exports. In such a case, our consumption, even of cotton goods, would be reduced with the means of payment. And if the cotton manufacturer abroad, had no other market than ours, he could not increase his purchasers. But, our consumption is but a small matter, compared with the amount of foreign production. The manufacturer has many other markets, which he now pushes to the utmost, but cannot enlarge. So long as he can buy from us, cheaper than from others, he will continue a customer to the extent of his market. But beyond that, no circumstance can make him a purchaser. 321. The South contend, upon the principle, that, the producer of the exports is payer of the import duty, that under any system of duties, while the revenue is derived, almost exclusively, from imports, their proportion of the burdens im posed by federal taxation, will be much greater than it ought to be, according to the principle of the Constitution, which regulates the apportionment of direct taxes. Under these circumstances, they think they have a right to insist, that the aggregate burden of taxation shall be as light as possible, and that not a dollar shall be expended by the Government, that can be avoided by a rigid economy. And upon these principles, they propose to reduce the duties upon imported merchandise, generally, to the revenue standard; gradually reducing those laid for the protection of manufactures. 322. The imported merchandise, they aver, is divisible into two classes; the unprotected, or such as are, exclusively, produced in foreign countries, as teas, coffee, silks, and wine; the burden of the duties upon which, is equally distributed over the Union, in proportion to the consumption: The protected consisting of articles partly produced abroad and partly in the United States; such as cotton, woollen, and iron manufactures, upon which, they say, that the duty operates unequally, being adverse to the southern, and propitious to northern, interests, and is not paid in proportion to the consumption, and by the consumer, but by the producer. To substantiate this apparent paradox, they reason thus: 323. Foreign manufactures are attainable by purchase, only. They must be purchased by the products of the domestic industry of the United States; and, therefore, there can be no possible conflict between foreign and domestic industry in our markets; but, the contest must be, between the domestic producer of the article which is exchanged for the foreign manufacture and the domestic manufacturer;-that manufactured goods imported, in exchange for southern produce, are, as truly and exclusively the productions of domestic industry, as they are sacredly the property of the planter; and being such products, and his property, he is entitled to introduce them for consumption, into the country, upon the same terms that the manufacturer makes them; free of, or upon equal, duties. That is, as the manufacturer pays no duty upon his products in cotton or woollen cloths, or manufactured iron, so neither shall the planter pay upon the products of his industry, when converted into such cloths or iron. 324. To illustrate this inequality, they put the following case. The cotton planter brings, from Liverpool, to Charleston, a cargo of cotton goods, valued at $50,000, in exchange for his cotton and wool. The manufacturer brings to the same port, from Boston, a cargo of cotton goods, of like value. But, the planter pays at the custom house a duty of forty per cent., whilst the manufacturer introduces his goods without payment of a farthing. The planter, therefore, receives for his importation twenty thousand dollars less than the manufacturer. This, the planter says, is unequal and burdensome upon him; and the more burdensome, as the money thus levied is not required by the wants of the Government, but is avowedly demanded, to enable the northern manufacturer to exclude from the market of the planter, his cheaper productions. 325. They further allege, in support of the charge of inequality, that, one half of the federal revenue is raised by protecting duties levied upon the manufactures for which the cotton, tobacco and rice produced by one-fifth part of the federal population, is exchanged, and that it is equivalent to an export duty upon cotton, tobacco and rice, of the planters; for if the manufactures received for the cotton, tobacco and rice, are as truly the productions of the planters, as the cotton, tobacco and rice themselves, it is immaterial to them, whether the duty be levied on the productions of their industry in one form or another. 326. The controversy, then, they say, resolves itself into a competition between the southern planters and northern manufacturers, for supplying the market of the United States with certain descriptions of manufactured goods; and the protecting duties inflict injury upon the southern planters, at least equal to the benefit they confer upon the northern manufacturers; nay, the evil is more grievous, for the duties take employment from a more productive class, and give it to one less productive. Because, if with a protection of forty per cent. the manufacturers can only make their ordinary profits, and if the planters can maintain the competition, even under this enormous discriminating duty, it is evident that with a mere revenue duty of 12 per cent. the planters could sell at much lower prices than the manufacturers, and at the same time realize much higher profits. This, they contend, is a correct view of the case, so far as it regards the interest of the parties, and that the question of their relative rights is not less clear. 327. If it be true, they say, that they have a perfect right to the produce of their industry, in any and every form, and in every place, it is clear, that, in the growth and export of their staples and the exchange for foreign commodities, they do not violate the rights of any other class of citizens, how . ever they may come in conflict with their interests. If then the right be perfect, on what principles of justice, they demand, can the power be claimed to take away their property for the benefit of another? 328. The manufactures demand protection. But protection against what? Not foreign invasion, but against a fair and equal competition against Southern industry. And extravagant protection is required, because foreign manufactures are purchased by the productions of the southern States, flowing from slave labour, which is four times cheaper in the operations of agriculture than the free labour of the northern States, the day-labourer on a cotton plantation earning not more than 12 cents per day, whilst the northern labourer has from fifty to an hundred. If the northern manufacturers had to contend against the importations by the agricultural products of the northern States, they would require no protection, for the agriculturists of those States cannot compete in the European markets with European producers, and, therefore, have no means to buy foreign manufactures. 329. The northern manufacturer, they continue, can have no more right to protection against the industry of the southern producer, than the latter can have, to demand, that he may import foreign manufactures free of duty, while an excise duty of forty per cent. should be levied upon the manufactures, which come in competition with his imports. This would be, but the inverse of the existing case, and, if the position of the defenders of the American System be true, this would not be oppressive upon the manufacturer, since, not he, but the consumer, would pay the duty, and it would, thus, be distributed over the United States. The middle ground, the ground of compromise, therefore, would be, that the imported and domestic manufactures should be alike free from duty or alike burdened. 330. But it is not true, that, the whole duty can be thrown upon the consumer, even where the duties are imposed upon the entire quantity of the taxed commodity consumed in the country. If this be true, it is more obviously and to a greater extent the case, where the duties are not equally levied upon the entire commodities consumed, but levied upon the smaller portion of the national consumption. This may be illustrated thus: The value of cotton goods manufactured in the United States for sale, may be twenty-four millions, and of those imported, about eight millions, annually. The duty upon the imports may be assumed at fifty per cent; equal to |