RICHMOND, March 23, 1842. SIR: I have to own your letter of the 17th, asking my opinion as to the policy of protecting our tobacco trade by retaliatory duties. I enclose an article, written by myself and published in the Whig of 18th December, 1840, which was suggested to my mind in consequence of Governor Gilmer's message to the Virginia Legislature, and the tobacco convention held about the same time in Maryland. By this you will see that I do not think it would benefit Virginia to get the European markets, say England, France, Italy, and Spain, to reduce the duties very low on tobacco; at any rate, I would not regulate them by retaliatory duties. At the same time, I am in favor of a high tariff, and to discriminate so far as to give a favorable and decided protection to all articles of home manufacture; and this, I consider, we have a right to do. I am, dear sir, your most obedient servant, Hon. E. W. HUBARD. [From the Richmond Whig.] JAMES GRAY.. I see from the papers that much interest seems to be felt by the tobacco growers in Virginia (I shall confine my remarks to the interest of the Virginia planters) on the subject of high duties charged on the article of tobacco by some of the European Governments, and particularly by Great Britain, where our finest and highest priced tobaccoes are used, and France and Italy, where it is a Government monopoly, and where our next best and highest priced tobaccoes are used. The impression seems to prevail with the planters, and probably the politicians of our State, that if the duty on tobacco was reduced, or done away entirely, in those countries, the demand for the article grown in Virginia would be greatly increased, and that prices would thereby be higher, thereby greatly benefiting the planter and increasing the wealth of Virginia. Now, I believe this opinion to be erroneous, and that some few facts are worth a thousand theories, and may satisfy many that, in some things, free trade is not always the best for every body. In the first place, Virginia only raises about one-third of the tobacco made in the United States, and nearly onehalf is manufactured at home, and the labor put upon it doubles the value; a good deal of which is exported in the manufactured state, with the increased value, and is of a quality to command a preference, and in consequence of the high duties paid in the European markets named, particularly England, completely excludes them from competing with us in all the lesser markets in the world, where the article is used and admitted at moderate duties or free. Again: tobacco is raised in Hungary and France, and many other places in Europe and South America and the West Indies, and very near, if not quite, as much tobacco is raised in Europe and European possessions as there is in the United States. Do our planters know this fact? Tobacco can be raised in Ireland to a great extent, and even in parts of Russia. Why has not more been raised in Europe, especially in Ireland, France, and Holland? Simply because theirs is an inferior article to ours, and, as such, could not pay the high duty that ours can bear. But look at Holland and Germany, where the duty is very inconsiderable, almost nothing, and you find tobacco so low in price that their markets are worth nothing to the Virginia planter, except merely to take off some 5,000 or 10,000 hhds. of lugs and inferior leaf annually, at $34 to $41 and $5. And why is this? Because they use tobacco principally for smoking, and an inferior cheap article will do; and, as there is little or no duty, the moment prices get above $34 or $5, they resort to the use of their own growth, but, at $34 or $4 to $5, they give the preference to American tobacco. Suppose the trade in Great Britain, France, and Italy, placed upon the same footing of Holland and Germany, is it not rea sonable to believe that all Europe, where tobacco can be raised, will raise it, for labor is cheaper there than here? The consequence would be, more tobacco would be raised and more would be consumed; but the growers in Virginia would have to take what they could raise it for in Europe, for we must bear this fact in mind, that in Europe (except in Great Britain) they do not chew tobacco-they smoke and snuff. The Virginia is used principally for chewing and mixing with other tobaccoes to make snuff; very little of it is used in smoking, and yet much the larger portion of tobacco used in the world, I presume, is consumed by smoking. There is now, and has been for years past, a demand for Virginia tobacco beyond her ability to raise it, and at prices paying the cultivator of the soil better than any thing else. Let the planters, then, raise more if they can, and when the product becomes so great that they find it necessary to increase the consumption, and they are willing to compete with the European growers, by selling their crops at $3 to $4 and $5 to $6 per 100 lbs., then, indeed, it may be well to seek to have the duty taken off. But it does seem to me that, unless we can get foreign Governments to take the duty off of all American tobacco, and to prohibit the cultivation of it by their own subjects, and to keep the duty on all tobacco raised in Europe; we have no right to complain, but should be well satisfied to find our better article protected by a duty so high as almost to exclude their inferior article. raised at home, and which, if used to any great extent, must reduce the value of ours. It is not the interest of our planters to cultivate double the quantity of ground, and exhaust their land to make a large quantity of inferior tobacco to sell at $3 to $5; they had much better cultivate half the quantity of land, make good tobacco, and get for it from $4 to $10, as they now do. These, gentlemen, are my views on this subject, hastily sketched; no doubt erroneous in some particulars, but, in the general, I believe to be correct. My only object in presenting them is to beneût the tobacco growing interest and the trade of Virginia. DECEMBER 18, 1840. FARMVILLE, March 24, 1842. DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 21st was received this morning, and I hasten to give you a very condensed sketch of my views on our foreign tobacco trade. It appears from your letter that you apprehend an attempt from cer tain parties to disturb the existing relation between this country and Great Britain, on the tobacco trade. As things stand, we have a monopoly of this trade with that Power; and it seems to me to be the result of very short-sighted statesmanship to object to the present excise regulations of England, on a subject which can affect only her own subjects. The Eng lish pay the duty, on such tobacco as they consume, to their own Govern ment, as a part of its revenue, just as they pay for the lights in their win dows; and our tobacco planters have just as much color to demur to the one tax as to the other. The larger the amount of revenue a Government can derive from a given subject, the better for itself; and certainly such a result cannot affect the grower and furnisher of the subject unless it. abridges the consumption. But suppose it can be established that the consumption is lessened by the excise. Be it so; and we will also suppose that Great Britain, in conformity with the wishes of some of our people, reduce the duty of tobacco one-half. What think you would result? Why, I apprehend, something like this: she would grant the privilege of growth to her subjects at home and also to her colonies-the one to raise at home, and the others to export as much tobacco as might furnish the deficiency in the existing rate of duty. I apprehend that, by this process, we should make an Irishman's profit-gain a loss in the transaction. In France, the Government holds the trade, and, in order to make as much revenue as possible from our tobacco, they have restricted the growth of this article to four provinces in the kingdom. A little injudicious tampering will drive her to do what every well-informed man At one period knows she can do-to grow the whole of her own tobacco. she grew 18,000 hhds. in France proper, and she could easily derive from her colonies such deficiency as might occur. The same may be said of all the German states. There they have always grown tobacco to a considerable extent, and when the price of tobacco in this country, from whatever causes it may arise, becomes excessive, the people take but little, and that little is generally at the expense of the shipper. In looking at this whole subject, I am decidedly of the opinion that it should be left untouched. I am perfectly in the dark when I attempt to apprehend any good that may result from change; while, on the other hand, I think I can see evils that may ruin this branch of our trade. I have given you a very imperfect outline of my opinions on this branch of our trade, and I fear you will derive nothing valuable from them. Let them pass for what they are worth. Hon. E. W. HUBARD. Yours, T. LYLE. RICHMOND, March 24, 1842. DEAR SIR: Your esteemed favor of 19th instant is to hand, and the contents duly regarded. While I candidly own that I am in favor of a judicious tariff to meet the wants of the Government economically administered, and, at the same time, affording every necessary protection to domestic manufactures, still I question very much if it would promote the best interest of the country at large, or even that of the tobacco-growing regions, to resort to the policy of "protecting our tobacco cultivation and trade by retaliatory duties." If foreign Governments could, by any legislation of ours, be induced to reduce the exorbitant duties to something like one-third of the present amount, the consumption would doubtless be increased, but I am apprehensive not by any means to the extent that is generally supposed; and, consequently, even under such circumstances, prices abroad would not be materially enhanced: therefore, no benefit of sufficient importance could be realized, even by the planter, to compensate him for the burdens he would necessarily have to bear (in an indi rect way, to be sure) by the advanced prices he would have to pay for foreign articles, that are yet indispensable to keep up his establishment. The most serious evil that the cultivator of tobacco, and those engaged in the trade, have to encounter, arises from the monopoly system that prevails in several foreign countries. For the supply of those countries, the article is contracted for to be delivered at a stipulated price, and the contractor of course employs an agent in this country for the purpose of purchasing and shipping the article; thus effectually doing away with all competition in our markets, so far as supplies for such countries are concerned, and of course buying only when it can be done on terms low enough to admit of large profits being realized. Were that system adopted by Great Britain and one or two other countries, in place of having a crowd of dealers at our inspections, as is the case now, and which insures to the planter the full value for his product, why there would not be seen more than some half dozen, beside those engaged in the home manufac ture. If any means could be fallen upon by our Government in the way of negotiation, by which the monopoly system could be done away with, our tobacco-growing interest would, in my opinion, be essentially benefited. With respect, I am, your most obedient servant, Hon. E. W. HUBARD. JOHN CASKIE. WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE, March 25, 1842. DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 19th instant was received by last mail, and I am sorry to say that you have paid me an unmerited compliment in supposing me at all acquainted with the nature and character of our tobacco trade. I have always been under the impression that the tobacco interest could receive very little benefit from protection, inasmuch as we can produce cheaper than other nations, and our chief market is the foreign one. As to the importation of snuff, cigars, &c., I doubt whether any duty on them would be beneficial, for I understand the tobacco used for them is such as we do not make; and, as they are luxuries, particularly the latter, I doubt whether their use would be materially lessened, in favor of the same articles made of the domestic growth; and, moreover, such a tax would fall as heavily on the Southern gentlemen, as on any other in the Union. I should therefore most unhesitatingly reject this scheme, if offered to the South as an equivalent for an unnecessary imposition of duty on other articles. With very high regard, I am, dear sir, your obedient servant, Hon. E. W. HUBARD, Washington. POWHATAN COUNTY, March 30, 1842. DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 19th inst., addressed to me at Richmond, would have received earlier attention but for having been, for the last several weeks, here at my farm, to which my chief attention of late has been directed, having several years past retired from commercial life. My opinion is, that, in arranging a tariff of duties on imports, the idea of retaliation should be discarded, with which, I think, we should have nothing to do every country has a right to levy such duties on imports as may be deemed to comport best with its interest and policy, without giving cause of complaint to other counties. I think that revenue and protection to home manufactures ought to be the governing considerations with us in levying duties on imports. I am aware that in the Southern States protective duties have been very unpopular; and, though less so now than formerly, perhaps the policy is not now in favor. I think, however, there is in progress, a change in the public mind on this subject, which will lead to the understanding of the true interest of the country, and to the establishment of such duties on many leading articles of domestic manufacture as to protect them from foreign competition. I would not be surprised if some of the Southern States, which have been most opposed to protective duties, are, ere long, found to be friends to the policy; this will certainly be the case, should Great Britain be successful in the efforts she is making to place herself, in a good measure, independent of the United States for raw cotton. Would it not be wise in us, anticipating a loss of the British as our chief customers for this important article, constituting as it does about two-thirds in value of all our exports, to encourage its manufacture at home? I believe you are a farmer, and if so, you will probably have learned that you should be dependent on others for nothing that you can make at home; the same policy, in my opinion, is applicable to us as a nation. to a I am aware that many intelligent and distinguished gentlemen have attached great importance to the high duties in some of the foreign markets, as operating injuriously to the interests of our tobacco planters, and reducyears, procure that efforts have been made, for the last several tion of these duties; they have, I think, thus far, been unavailing, as, I think they will continue to be. With due deference to the better judgment of those who have been most zealous in attempts to get the duties on tobacco reduced, I am not clear in the opinion that our planters would reap the great benefits counted on as resulting from reduced duties. In the first place, I question its increasing the consumption to any very important extent. It is a luxury of which each individual consumes but a small quantity, and therefore the annual cost to each, even with high duties, is not large; it is a stimulant that the consumers will have, though they be obliged to deny themselves some of the necessaries of life. But what would be the effects of large increased consumption? Inducements to extended cultivation in this and other countries, and to its cultivation in countries not now producing it. Is it not probable that the increased supplies would at least equal the increased consumption? And if so, there would be no advance in prices. May not the policy of encouraging, under any circumstances, the extention of the culture of tobacco in the United States be questioned? I am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, Hon. EDMUND W. HUBARD, RICHARD ANDERSON. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. |