[ Doc. No. 82. 1 periods of six years each, from 1791 to 1796, from 1797 to 1801, and h 1801 to 1806$ the average income from duties being, for the first periov $4,792,560; for the second, $8,922,684; and for the third, $13,565,206^ During this period, however, there was an immense extension of the carrying trade, and of the cultivation of cotton; nor do we suppose that foreign commerce would increase so rapidly under a system of low duties in future. The pi duction of commodities for exportation would, however, be stimulated b; the cheapness of foreign commodities; and the profits of commerce, and the amount of freights applicable to the purchase of foreign commodities, would be likewise increased. Imports would thus increase somewhat beyond the rate of exported products. The prevention of smuggling, too, which would be the effect of low duties, is, perhaps, not unworthy of consideration as tending to increase imports. If the reduction of duties should have the effect, of preventing the diversion of capital and labor to other employments in future, it would follow that an increased proportion of the annual accessio to the labor of the country, would be employed in producing commodities for foreign exportation, and, consequently, that the production of these commodities would exceed the ratio of the increase of population. It is certain that some temporary causes would occasion a great increase of importation for some years; and this temporary excitement of our commercial intercourse, would tend to the enlargement of our permanent commerce. Considering the increase of imports in the natural co,ursc of things, and the accelerated increase which must be the effect of a great reduction of duties, the undersigned submit whether it can be considered doubtful that average duties of twelve and a half, or, at the utmost, fifteen per cent, would produce a revenue amply sufficient for the ordinary expenses of Government. In addition to what is said in the memorial on the subject of the encouragement given to the productions of agriculture by the protective system, we beg leave to make some remarks as explanatory of our own views in relation to the additional market supposed to be afforded for the great staple, cotton. If there be in reality any extension of the market, caused by the introduction of manufactures, it must be a market sustained at the expense of the planters themselves, and at an expense, too, which is much greater than the additional price which can possibly be procured for cotton. In this respect, it bears an exact analogy to the merchant who pays his purchasers to purchase his goods more than the profit he should make on them; or may be aptly compared to the institution of a standing army when the nation does not require one, which will be sure to increase the demand for agricultural products, but at a cost to the farmer which will make him look on it as a curse to his country. if we examine into this increase of market, it will be found so inconsiderable, so inefficient in its operation, especially when set off against the gradual loss of market in Europe, which will, in all probability, ensue, that it is entirely unworthy of the vast efforts which have been made to establish it. For before the American system was carried to the extent to which it is now pushed, our cotton fabrics were imported from Great Britain, and consumed in larger quantities than they would have been if made in the United States, in consequence of greater cheapness. The greater portion of these cotton goods were made with American cotton. Is it not evident, then, that if we produce these fabrics in the United States, England will afford a les market than formerly, to the amount af least, of that portion of cottou which she
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=