CIRCULAR.

To the Voters of Cos.OeIt, Rockingham, Stoke.
sa q SnrTE' TViLkeS and Asie. u
{"newspaper_name": "The North-Carolina standard.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6409, "word_count": 1179, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9768000245094299], "ccnet_perplexity": [968.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
L
chosen your representative has expired and Ieon-
/ form to the custom which has heretofore prevail
led in our district Of noticing some Of the subjects
which have engaged the consideration Of the last
Congress. When l entered upon the duties as
signed me, entertained fears that should not be
able to discharge the trust with satisfaction to my
sell, or to those whose kind partiaIity had made
me their representative; and now, after my duties
thave ceased, when reflect upon the monleDtous
and complicated questions npon which / have
been called to act am free to say that those fears
have not vanished. Embarrassing and perplex-
ing as many ofthese questions were have avoid.
ed no responsibility. My conduct has been prompt.
ed solely by a desire to promote the honor and
welfare of the countryi and fully recognising the
accountability of the representative to his cousiu
ents, | leave il with you 10 freely condemn what
ever ia my legislative course you may find to be
wrong, and to approve whatever you find in it 10
be right.


At the first session a bill was reported by the
Committee Of Ways and Means to modify the tar
if Of l842 Although this bill did not provide
for as great reduction as desired, yet l voted
for it, because was preferable to the present tar
iR The southern and northern wings, joined by
a portion Of the democrats, from the North, voted
against this BILL and defeated it in the House by
a majority of six votes. Upon this important
question, to many of you my views have been Of





has not changed those views. A tariff is, in fact
t0I bill, and ought In detail to be so arranged as
to equaize, as nearly as possible, the burdens to
be borne by every section of the Union and by all
classes, having due regard to the ability of each
to contribute l fancy that all who are opposed
to comforting exclusive privileges upon favored
few will assent to the correctness of this position


and if it be right, then the tariff act of 1S42 is
clearly wrong, as all who impartialIy examine
its operations viii be able to discover


| To collect duty on foreign importatiohS suffi-
cient to defray the legitimate expenditures of gov
fernment is what no one objects to but tariff
which taxes one class to enrich another, is unjust,
and ought to be abandoned even by those for
whose benefit it was enacted We are told by
those who favor this policy, that their object is
to protect the American manufacturer against the
Ipauper labor of European nations. When asked
4 how they wish to effect their object, they al
lege that it is impossible for our manufactures to
compete with the cheap labor Of foreigners, and
that it is gross injustice to suffer their goods to be
brought here and sold, to the exclusion of those
manufactured at home. It is unnecessary to re-
mark that if they were TO succeed in keeping out
all foreign articles, there would be nothing re-
ceved at our custom houses upon which to collect
a duty, and the government would then have to
resort to direct taxation to raise revenue to de-
| fray its expenditures measure to which all are
opposed.


The fact is, that although the duty on many ar.
tcleS is so high as 10 prevent their importation yet
the amount Of imporations under the present tar
iff for the year ending June 80, 1914, was one
hundred and eight millions of dollars and the
question is not whether foreign merchandise shall
be admitted into the country; but, after it is ad-
mitted it is under that act, whether we shall be
compelled to pay high or Low tax on it. 1t is
commended by many the friends of the measure
that high duties do not enhance the price of the
article to the consumer; and to maintain this posi-
tion they point to the fact that many manufactured
articles are lower now than they were some years
ago; and, without proof assume that the tariff is
the cause. In this it is clear they are mistaken
But, suppose for the sake of argument we as
sumo that the tariff has made goods cheaper :rand
then see what will be the result You know they
tell that the tariff protects the farmer and plan.
ter, as well as the manufacturer.
1t is known to every one that, since the passage
oflhe tariff of lS42, the articles raised by the far
mer and planter have fallen much more than the
manufactured fabrics; so that if the tariff is enti-
tied to the credit of causing the enc to be lower,
it must bear the blame of the great reduction in
the price of the other. If their facts and argu-
ments be untrue, they pTore nothing iftrue, they
prore the tariff to be q0rOng. Some take the
ground that, because other countries lay heavy
duties upon our products, we should retaliate by
levying heavy duties on theirs; and contend that
the consumer does not pay the duty, but that it is
paid by the foreigner who sells US the article.
Let us examine this position. The onerous duty
on tobacco in England is often cited to justify the
policy of retallatory duties. Now, it is no doubt
true, that if the duties on ntobacco were repealed,
it would leave the people there less tax to pay on
the article, which might enable them to buy and
to consume more of it, and thereby increase the
demand and raise the price to Limited extent
This would be true in regard to any other arLi- |
Gle in similar situation in any country.


But if it were true that the planter who made
the tobacco paid the duty, and notthe British sub
iecs who consume it, then good crop of tobacco
would ruin any OF our planters, and the worst Of
1t would be, that the more tobacco they made, the
greater would be the ruin! To illustrate. sup
pose A raises four hegsheads of tobacco, which he
sells for seventy-6ve dollars each, and they are
exported to Eng and, where they are consumed
The duty paid there, on these four nogsheads
would be at least three thousand dollars Now,
can it be pretended that A, whose tobacco was on
" worth three hundred dollars, has paid this
British tax of three thousand dollars2 The idea
is preposterous For A no more pays this tax
than B, who sells the same quantity of the same
article, and at the same price, to be consumed at
home, and upon which the British duty is never
levied The consumer pays the duty and those
who insist retalating duties are in effect say
ing that because Great Britain taxes her subjects
almost to starvation, to retaliate," we must tax
ourselves in the same wayI The people, it is
hoped, are not willing to give their sanction to