their whole supply of this important class of goods,-goods largely consumed among us,— and which, under a reasonable protection, we could manufacture with ease and with advantage. The same dependence exists in regard to linen fabrics, and for a similar cause; the duty on such goods being ranged lower than the duty on articles of cotton or wool.

Among the objections which have been urged against protective dutics in the United States, the following have been prominent, and to many, probably, have seemed conclusive: First, That all customs-duties, as a means of revenue, operate on different States unequally, as compared with direct taxation. Second, That protective duties, by raising the price of the home product as well as of similar articles imported, impose an unequal burden upon the non-manufacturing States.

The first objection rests on an assumption, the truth of which many, perhaps, would readily admit, who, for other and sufficient reasons, would set aside the objection itself; and yet that assumption is entirely groundless, as proved by the figures of Table Q, which show the bearing of customs-duties and direct taxation as the former actually affects the several States, and as the latter would affect them if depended on for revenue. The population of each State and Territory of the Union, and the value of its property, real and personal, as taken from the census of 1860, are given in the first and second columns of the table. From these and other official data, I deduce as follows, the figures of columns three and four: The total amount of customs-revenue is $53,187,511. This sum, divided by 31,383,998 (the total population), gives $1 as the allotment per capita, or revenue proportion for each individual. Multiply this allotment by the population of cach State, and we get the estimated sum paid by each, under the tariff, towards the support of Government. The fourth column, representing the amount which the several States and Territories would have to pay under a system of direct taxing, is thus derived: The revenue from customs, viz. $53,187,511, is divided by the aggregate value of the taxable property in the whole Union, viz. $12,084,650,014;

Statement showing the Population of the different States and Territories; the Value of the Real and Personal Estate therein; the estimated Amount paid for the Support of Government by each State, under the Tariff; and the estimated Amount each State would have paid for the same Object, under direct Taxation.

The Classification of States is that adopted at the Census Office for the last Census.

the quotient, .0014, is the percentage on all the taxable property borne by the amount to be raised. The sum which each State would pay for the support of Government, under direct taxation, is obtained by multiplying its amount of taxable property by this percentage.

It is not contended that the figures in this comparative view arc, in every particular, an exact representation. There are conditions in the problem which make a perfect result a thing of difficult if not impossible attainment. On one hand, the consumption of dutiable goods, as reckoned per capita, is not equal in all parts of the country. Again: the valuation of taxable property is more or less liable to inaccuracy, from the fact that the basis of valuation is not the same in all the States; but, even with these abatements, the statement, taken as a whole, is sufficiently accurate for general conclusions, and fully demonstrates, that, so far as the amount of money raised is concerned, the burden of supporting the Government is a burden quite as equally distributed under a tariff as it would be under the form of direct taxation. It is, indeed, a remarkable fact, that the bearing of the two systems, under a statistical test, should be found so nearly equal. Some of the States, under a direct tax, would pay more than they now pay; while others, it appears, would pay somewhat less. These differences, however, are all of them slight, and such as might be looked for from the causes just named. The section which has been most favored by the tariff-policy, as compared with direct taxation, is evidently the planting interest!

As respects the second objection mentioned above,' I remark, in the outset, that the actual amount of customs-dutics, which operate as absolute protection to our manufactures, is much less than is generally supposed. The entire amount of duties collected in 1860' on articles wholly manufactured, as shown by Table R, was $34,285,021. Though imposed on manufactures, these duties were not all of them protective. This term is applicable to customs-duties (even in the opinion of those who oppose protection) only when imposed on such articles as are made in the country which lays the duty.3 Of the imports which yielded the sum just named, a considerable portion belonged to classes of articles not made in the United States, or to classes made here on a scale so limited as to exert no perceptible influence on the result. These articles, and the duties collected on them, were as follows:

1 See page 79 of the text.

See definitions of Protection and Free Trade, p. 2 of the

This year is taken as the latest year unaffected by the Rebellion.

text.

The Dutiable Imports of the United States in 1860, classified according to their Bearing on the Question of Protection. Compiled from the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Finances for the same Year.

Deducting these results from the total amount of imports of articles wholly manufactured, and from the duties thereon collected, we have the following:

That portion of our customs-duties which can be regarded as protective of manufactures amounted in 1860, as shown above, to only $22,468,038. Even this sum must be further reduced. It is an obvious fact, that duties on raw materials, and duties on articles partially manufactured (which belong to the same class with raw materials, so far as they enter into manufactures), have the effect to neutralize protection just as far as they go. These, if any such there were, must be left out of the account. In 1860, it appears, from the table just referred to, that the duties collected on imports of raw materials for use in manufactures amounted to $1,543,354. The duty on articles partially manufactured was $1,988,725; the aggregate being $3,532,079.

Duties nominally protective of Manufactures
Neutralizing Duties on Raw Materials

Total of Duties actually protective of Manufactures.

Those whose vague ideas on questions of this nature have been derived from distorted representations, too often put forth, — either from actual mistake, or with selfish views, or for political effect, - may learn, with surprise, that only about one-third of all our customs duties can be regarded as protective of American manufactures.1 Customs-duties imposed for revenue on classes of manufactures not produced in the country cannot be objected to, even by free-trade economists; since, in reference to protection, they stand in precisely the same category with imports on tea, coffee, and other articles, exclusively or mainly of foreign origin. Nor can customs-dutics laid

1 On pages 47 and 48 of the text, it is shown that England collects more duty on the tobacco which we send her, than we collect on our entire imports of her manufactures. Such, at least, was the case in 1859. From the statement on this page, we perceive that the whole amount of our duties actually protective of manufactures, collected in 1860, was less by $788,461 than the sum which England imposed and received

on our tobacco. Let John Bull smoke his pipe in peace, and cease to grumble at us until he finds some better cause.

3 The duty we impose on silks, linen goods, worsted stuffs, and embroideries, they being made in the United States to only a trifling extent,-is, upon English principles, as strictly a revenue-duty as that which Britain imposes upon Chinese tea or American tobacco.