1

should consider it as doing nothing. No plan will answer, or can be executed, which does not include, generally, the cases of all such as ordered goods previous to 1st May, or whose partners or agents ship them, not knowing that such a bill had passed, and which said goods arrived before 1st September, 1828.

The bill reported last year would meet my case, and that of most others, very fairly. I should like the wording a little altered, (as I once before said to you, and I gave the words I would substitute,) as I think much doubt will be raised as to its real meaning. If a partner or agent in England, or Russia, or elsewhere, sent out goods to his house here before he knew the tariff had passed, or would pass, the duties on such goods should be given up, and they should be viewed as goods "ordered" from this country. Any bill proposing to return only a part of the extra duty, would be impracticable and unjust: the whole should be returned, no matter even if the goods had risen instead of having fallen. Why favor the importer of other kinds of goods? The importer of iron, knowing that the duty on that would rise on the 1st September, would of course, avail himself of that fact, provided any advance could be had; but no advance has taken place on iron or any thing else, as you will see by reading Henry Lee's report on the article; and the doctrine of Mr. Niles was, for once verified, that laying a high duty often lowers the price of an article, and reducing the duty increases its value. I hope, therefore, there will be nothing in the bill about "satisfying the Secretary" about the loss sustained. The mail is closing: I will write more fully in a few days.

Yours, dear sir, very truly,'

S. D. BRADFORD.

Extract from Mr. Bradford's letter of January 28th, 1832.

"Nothing can be more certain than that the extra duty laid in 1828 came, nearly all of it, out of the pockets of the importers. Some cases may have arisen, where some kinds of goods, sold, after the tariff was passed, higher than before; and certainly if this had not been the case, many importers would have lost half their capitals: but the advance was on articles on which the extra duty amounted to an increase of 40 and 100 per cent.; and it may be truly and safely asserted, that in all such cases the advanced realized was only a fractional part of the extra duty imposed. Take, for instance, the article of English flannels, and suppose an importer to have received a bale on the 30th June, 1828, of 20 pieces, costing £45 sterling in England; the duty under the tariff of 1824, on this bale, (being 33 per cent.) would amount to $73 26; by the act of 1828 the duty would have been $207.

"Now suppose the importer did realize, in July or August, 1828, 5 and 10 per cent. advance more on flannels than he would have done if the duty had not been increased, still is not his loss very heavy?. It would amount to the difference there is between $207 and $73 26, (less the small advance obtained) and the profit he would have obtained on the sales of this bale, provided no extra duty had been imposed, and these two items will amount to more than the difference between the old duty and the new, which we claim to have refunded. In like manner, I could illustrate the same fact in

mány other articles. This country consumes largely of an article called "bockings," well known to the New England people, (Mr —

-'s asser

tion to the contrary notwithstanding,) and many bales of this article were annually imported, costing, in England, 6d. per yard; the duty by the tariff of 1824, was 44 cents per yard, and 22 cents per yard by that of 1828;. but I need not enlarge on this subject."

2.

Letter from Benj. Rich and Son, in reply to S. B. Barrell's letter to Mr. Bradford, of January 17th.

BOSTON, January 23, 1832.

DEAR SIR: Your letter to Mr. Bradford of 17th is before us, and in relation to that part where it is said that the articles rose in price in proportion to the additional duty, and that the consumer paid it, we can answer for ourselves, most decidedly, that every article we imported from Russia rather declined than rose: clean hemp, which we had been selling at $225, we were obliged to take $220, or not sell at all; and ravens duck, on which the duty was increased wards of four hundred per cent., we could not obtain for it any higher price than before, and were obliged to export it, and work in every way possible to save ourselves, and, finally, had to submit to a loss on an article which we had previously made a fair mercantile profit. This we know to have been the case on many other articles, particularly wool, and some woollen goods. There is no better reason why Congress should admit our claim, than that it was evidently their intention to have extended the time to the first of September on all articles the same as they did on iron.

Mr Burges, (from R. I.) stated to our B. R., in New York, on his return from Washington, that it was altogether a mistake, and that it was their intention that it should have been so. We hope and trust the present members will see the justice of the case, and do now what it was their intention then to have done, if they had not been so hurried.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servants,

BENJAMIN RICH & SON.

S. B. BARRELL, Esq.

3.

Letter from Windsor Fay, in reply to S. B. Barrell's letter to Mr. Bradford, of January 17th.

BOSTON, January 24, 1832.

SIR: Mr. Rich has shown me a letter from you, requesting information to prove that the tariff did not cause a rise on the imported article equal to the additional duty; and I am happy that the facts in the case fully warrant the assertion that, in wool, the importer could not realize even the price

at which it had before sold. I have before me sales by Whitewill, Bond, & Co., of Smyrna and Adrianople wool, in December, 1829, at 12 cents per lb, at which price the sale was stopped, and the lot afterwards closed at private sale at 11 cents; whereas the price of these wools, previous to the tariff of 1828, had been 14 and 15 cents, and the additional duty imposed by the tariff was about 54 cents The sale of wool to which I have referred, was among the first public sales of wools after the passage of the tariff: as there was hardly one bale of wool sold in this city for nearly or quite a year, of course I refer to imported wools of Smyrna and Adrianople. Your obedient servant,

S. B. BARRELL, Esq., Washington.

WINDSOR FAY

4.

John D. Bates, to S. B. Barrell.

BOSTON, January 24th, 1832.

SIX: Learning that those unfavorable to our claims for return duties paid on goods imported in August, under the tariff of 1828, contend that the articles on which the duties were increased, advanced in consequence, sufficient to meet the increase of duty, thus placing the burden on the consumer instead of the importer; I'beg leave to state the facts, as within my own knowledge, applicable, more particularly, to goods imported at that time by my late firm N. Bridge & Co.

The duty which we paid on heavy ravens duck amounted to 270 c. pr. ps. and, under the tariff of 1824, it was only 74 c. pr. ps., while the average price was as follows:

In May, 1828, $74 a 8

June, 66

84

8 a 8

8a 84 These prices merely nominal, being obtainable 8 a 84 only by retail.

8 a 81

By this you will perceive, there was no advance in the rates current previous to the new impost.

At the same period, we imported from Russia a quantity of wool of low grade, on which the duty, under the tariff of 1824, would have been less than 14 c. per lb.; under that of 1828, 7 was imposed. It is well known this article advanced somewhat in price, although far from enough to equal the new duty, more especially on that of low cost, the impost being increased about 500 per ct.

We also imported, at same time, imperial sail duck, which, notwithstanding the increased duty, continued gradually to decline. In 1828, sales were made with difficulty, at $184, in small parcels. Until 1830, we were unable to get rid of this article. It was then closed at $ 15}!

Your obedient servant,

JOHN D. BATES,

Surviving partner of

N. BRIDGE & Co.

S. B. BARRELL, Esq., Washington.

5.

Extract from Mr. Bradford's letter of February 11th, 1832.

"We are gratified, but not surprised, that the documents which have been transmitted to you, to prove the decline in the value of goods in 1828, have produced conviction upon the minds of those who have perused them. No person who was engaged in commercial pursuits at the time, can doubt for a moment that all the statements which have been submitted to prove the decline in the price of imported goods, after the passage of the act of May, 1828, are literally and strictly true. We cannot turn over a price current of that year, which does not confirm it; and the losses which the foreign merchants sustained, were neither few nor small. How, indeed, could it be otherwise? The new duties imposed, amounted, in many cases, to an increase of 80 a 125 per cent. above the old duty, and were prohibitory; so that no person has imported a bale of those articles since 1828.

"We are very sorry to find that any gentleman should have come to the conclusion, that the decline in the prices of goods in 1828, arose in consequence of "overstocked" markets; and that the cause of this overstock was "an expectation," on the part of the merchants, that the duties would be increased; and that increased orders were sent abroad for goods in consequence of this expectation. The very reverse of this is the fact. The imports in the summer of 1828, and in the autumn of that year, were not large by any means, nor upon an increased scale; and it is a well known fact that very few persons believed that the tariff act of 1828 would pass, until they read its passage in the public prints of the day; and we are confident, that if any person believed it would pass at all, there was not a merchant in this country, who ever conceived, for a moment, that it would commence its action at once. All supposed that four to twelve months would be allowed for the merchants to prepare for so great and sudden a change, as had been done upon all previous occasions.

"We are pleased to find that Messrs. Lewis & Co. have forwarded to you the documents which we requested them to send. We could send you twenty more affidavits from this city, should it be deemed necessary, and as many more from New York; but we cannot think it expedient to multiply documents which may not be required. If, however, you are of a different opinion, we will forward you any number for which you may write to us.'

29

6.

A. J. Lewis to S. B. Barrell, Esq.

PHILADELPHIA, February 3, 1832. DEAR SIR: I now send you a statement of my importation, with such proof as I consider conclusive as to the fact of there being a heavy loss thereon, and I would hope that with such a mass of disinterested testimony, of the most respectable auctioneers, importers, and commissioned merchants of this city, that it may go far to satisfy those, (if any there be, who are not) that a heavy loss was sustained on imports, as the statement itself almost demostrates the impossibility of attaching the amount of extra duties to the

prices of the goods, the value of which was about $26,000, and to cover the extra duty, it would have required about 34 per cent. in addition to former prices, to be put upon them; you will readily see how utterly impossi ble it was to put such a monstrous advance on importations, when the country was stocked with similar goods imported under the tariff of 1824; the holders of which were disposing of them at no more than a moderate profit on the cost, as calculated under that tariff.

I also herewith hand a statement of F. & R. Thompson's case, corroborative of my statement, and of the testimony contained in the several documents herewith, which you will find fully demonstrative of the fact, that the consumer did not remunerate the importer for the additional duties.

Although I have fully made out the proof of loss, (as I conceive) and which may be found useful in the prosecution of the claims, yet, I am of opinion that neither the loss nor the profit ought to influence Congress in returning to the merchants that which was exacted of them by an unfortu nate error, as I have always understood, in fixing the time for the new tariff laws to take effect on the 30th June, (thus making the law retrospective, so far as regards imports from Europe) when it was intended to extend the time to the 1st of September, 1828.

Therefore, on the ground of the retrospective operation of the law, and of the just usage of governments in such cases, I would look for relief, rather than from the circumstance of having sustained a loss on the goods.

My business has come upon me so heavily just now, that I find it impossible to give that consideration and attention to the subject of the foregoing that I otherwise would do; but I hope that some of the parties interested will more extensively aid you in your exertions to obtain that justice from Congress, which, in my humble opinion, ought long since to have been afforded.

Respectfully, dear sir,

Your obedient servant,

A. J. LEWIS

S. B. BARRELL, Esq., Washington.

Statement of Lewis & Co.'s importations of British cotton, woollen, and worsted goods, between the 30th June and 1st September, 1828, as rendered to the Secretary of the Treasury.

Amount of importations

£5,859 4 5

to

The duty paid on which, imposed by the tariff of 1828, amount

The amount of duty imposed by the tariff of 1824, would have been

$18,153 93

9,451 68

Amount of extra duty paid and claimed by Lewis & Co.

PHILADELPHIA, February 3, 1832.

LEWIS & CO.

$8,701 65