her institutions, organic laws, and commercial advantages, no question can ever possibly arise as to its expediency and benefits. But the various states of this confederacy differ in all these circumstances, and the South strenuously insists that the tariff is oppressive and unconstitutional, because the North and West derive exclusive advantages, which, it is contended, inflict corresponding injuries upon the South. Here then that unity of interests, which is appropriate to most countries, is lost, and the three great sections of the republic become so many conflicting fragments, disputing for a point, which heretofore no united nation ever controverted.

The South contends, that every impost upon manu. factures of foreign produce, is a tax levied upon agri. culture and commerce, and a bounty given to the American fabricator. But this position is fallacious; and is entirely exploded by the long settled doctrine, that in all cases of impost, whether direct or indirect, it is the consumer that pays the tax, and not those general branches of trade, which are excluded from its operation; and if the consumer pays, it becomes a more equally distributed and general burden, than any which the ingenuity of man could devise. Prolixity of reasoning on this subject would be a reflection upon the common sense of mankind, notwithstanding the imposing fact, that a committee of congress have assumed the contrary, as a principle from which to reason against the system of protection. The following is the reasoning of that report:

"Before the committee proceed to expose the inevitably destructive effect of the proposed tariff upon the export trade in cotton, tobacco, and rice, they will submit a few remarks in confirmation of the idea, al

A A

ready suggested, that the principal burden of taxation, even under a mere revenue system of imposts, falls upon those staples, and on the shipping interest and commerce dependent on them. It has been already shown, that the manufacturing states import upwards of seven millions of merchandise, free of duty. This exemption operates as a bounty in favour of manufactures, not only at the expense of the revenue, but also at the expense of agriculture and commerce, which must be subjected to heavier charges, to supply the deficiency resulting to the revenue from that exemption. But the committee feel authorized to go still further, and to assert, that the whole of the revenue derived from imported articles, of which similar and rival articles are manufactured in this country, even under the most moderate system of impost duties, is a tax upon agriculture and commerce; and that manufactures, so far from participating in the burden, are benefited by its imposition. Conclusive practical proof of this will be found in the fact, that the manufacturers would unquestionably oppose a proposition to repeal the whole of the impost duties, even if the public lands were adequate to supply the government with all the revenue required for the public service. It is only necessary, indeed, to suggest the idea of a repeal of the impost duties, and an imposition of internal taxes equally bearing upon all interests of the country, to render strikingly evident the proposition stated by the committee.

"It cannot, indeed, be doubted that a system of revenue, which imposes no internal taxes, but is exclusively confined to impost duties, is a tax upon agriculture and commerce, and a bounty in favour of manufactures."

sumer.

The fact stated is, in our opinion, far from being conclusive; indeed it has no relevancy whatever to the principle in dispute. That our manufacturers desire protection by imposts, is one proposition in itself, wholly distinct from the principle which settles the question as to what branch of industry bears the final burden of the tax. Political economy has long ago settled the point, that the consumer pays, and none but the consumer. The impost is paid in the first instance by the importer, who adds it to the price of the commodity, and it continues to be added, through every successive hand, until it reaches the last buyer or conAs to commerce, it pays, strictly speaking, no impost whatever, being the mere channel of import and export; and the trite observation, so often turned into a boast, that the merchant pays the revenue to government, is not only fallacious, but absurd. All taxes, whether relative to imposts, or excise, whether levied on land, merchandise, or other articles, falls ultimately upon industry, upon productive labour, or whatever represents industry and labour. Commerce, so far as it produces gain, may in one sense be said to pay the impost, but agriculture pays more, and manufactures pay most; for the product of manufacturing industry, including of course all branches of mechanics, is vastly greater than all other species of industry together. So that in point of inequality, there can be no sort of taxation levied upon society, that does not bear harder upon that interest which the tariff protects, than any of these which urge its repeal. To protect that great mass of industry which pays the great mass of impost is surely as wise as it is politic, and as patriotic as it is just but it is only what justice would exact and patriotism decree.

The cotton raising states of the south and west, are entitled to all credit for their industry and patriotism, and that they do produce a large mass of industry, I cheerfully allow. But what would be their condition, without home manufactures? What would be their condition, without our manufactures of iron, brass, wood, hats, boots, leather, &c. &c. to the most simple article of domestic convenience and necessity? Could they pay for the imported, and grow rich? I say, no! But what is their condition? Their cotton is sold at a price, not below that which it commanded prior to the tariff; and whether it is sold abroad, or at home, if it commands the same price, cannot concern them; unless as patriots they prefer the latter, because it is more beneficial to their country.

The committee whom we before quoted, also object to the tariff, because it cuts off the foreign demand for cotton. "The committee will now attempt to exhibit the injurious tendency of the proposed tariff, in its bearing upon the commerce and shipping sustained by our southern staples, as well as upon the agricultural labour and capital engaged in their production. And, in the first place, they are of opinion, that the prohibition of British manufactures will, inevitably, cut off very nearly to the extent of that prohibition, the foreign demand for our cotton. There is no law of trade more deeply fixed, in the very nature of commercial exchanges, than that a nation cannot purchase foreign productions, but by giving its own productions, or its own labour, 'directly or indirectly, in exchange for them."

The position is here gratuitously assumed, without either reason or experience to sustain it, that the tariff does prohibit British manufactures !-and this forms

the postulate from which the conclusion is drawn, that it would destroy the foreign demand for cotton. Since that report was made to congress, to prevent the passage of the tariff bill, we have had ample experience of its effects upon the English market; and it has neither operated to prohibit foreign manufactures, nor to lessen the foreign demand for cotton. Assuming then our ground, that the importation of manufactures is a just criterion of the consumption of cotton: So far the influx of foreign fabrics, since the passage of the tariff law, has augmented beyond all reasonable limits, with a commensurate diminution of prices; an effect which at the same time that it prostrates all the theoretical objections of the committee, to the protective system, seems equally to baffle the expectations of its friends, that it would prove beneficial to American industry. This unexpected result, however, which disappoints both its friends and its foes, is not to be taken as the uniform effect, that will flow from the permanent continuation of the same policy; but it is rather to be considered as the anomalous consequence of an excess of competition from two adverse points; a natural and almost necessary effect of a revolution of the channels of trade. We must expect, that after this importations will decrease, and home manufactures become more extended and more flourishing. A reaction will follow this excessive tension of the elastic cord of competition. The British manufacturer, or his agents, will cease to import in such immense quantities, and sell at such ruinous losses; they will adopt the standard of profit as the measure of quantity imported; and thus enter fairly into the market with our home manufacturers. Such will be the result of a well regulated tariff policy, when in permanent operation, and adopted as the set