FARMERS' REGISTER 



763 



By the same estimate including 

 that interest, to . . _ 6,300,000 



By an estimate of the secretary 

 of the treasury, (Mr. Dallas) 

 these expenses (or the year 1816, 

 amounted to - - - - $42,884,269 



But deducting all articles sup- 

 posed by him to be temporary, the 

 permanent expenses of the gov- 

 vernment amounted to - - 19,2S8,G69 



In 1794 the exports of the Unit- 

 ed States of articles both foreign 

 and domestic, by official report, 

 amounted to - - - - 26,011,788 



From these documents it appears, that the ex- 

 penses of the federal government were above fifty- 

 seven times higher" in 1816 than in 1791, and 

 near seven times higher than in 1803. That the 

 ordinary or permanent expenses of the irovernraent 

 had trebled between 1791 and 1803 ; that in 1816, 

 they were above twenty-two times higher than in 

 1791, and near three times higher than in 1803, 



In 1794, excluding foreign articles, re-exporied, 

 the native were about §'20,000,000 in value ; now 

 they may amount to 40 millions. And it may be 

 assumed as a fact, that the population of the 

 United Slates has about doubled since 1791 or 

 1794. If eiiher the increase of people or of ex- 

 ports had graduated taxation, it ought in 1816, to 

 have exibiied only double the amount of the taxes 

 of 1792. But taxes are in all countries graduated 

 by cunning, rapacity and ambition, and in none, 

 by these scales. 



The idea, however, of justifying an increase of 

 taxation by an increase of either, is fallacious. It 

 makes people the property ol governments and 

 not the wealth and strength of nations. When 

 an increase of people, by producing a greater 

 division of public burdens, diminishes the contribu- 

 tion of every individual, — it is thus, and thus only, 

 an increase ol national wealth. But if the contri- 

 butions of every individual remain as high as be- 

 fore this increase of people, it inflicts an additional 

 degree of poverty upon the former inhabitants, 

 upon whom the difficulty of subsistence is increas- 

 ed by an accession of population, to any given 

 space ; and this accession to the expense of eub- 

 Bistence, brought bj' an accession to the popula- 

 tion, is a real loss to the former inhabitants, uiiless 

 their burdens are rendered lighter, by being di- 

 vided among more people. But if the burdens of 

 the former inhabitants are increased under the 

 pretext of an additional population, this increase, 

 added to the increased diiEculiy of living, converts 

 an increased population, which ought to be a bless- 

 ing, into a curse, and from being a cause of 

 wealth, into an instrument of opfjression, and the 

 author of poverty. In like manner an accession 

 to population, used as a pretext lor increasing 

 standing armies, produces national weakness, in- 

 stead of national strength, by the expense of their 

 maintenance, by their gradual translormation into 

 a counterpoise to the nation, and by fostering an 

 unmilitary reliance upon them. Thus, by using 

 an increase of" population as a pretext for incieas- 

 ina taxation and standing armies, the maxim, 

 " that it adds to the wealth and strength of na- 

 tions," is completely reversed, by makmg it the 

 cause of poverty, and weakness. Let the facts to 

 sustain this reversal, be glanced at. In 1791, our 

 neighboring enemies, the Indiane, were much 



ore numerous than at present, and our own 

 population only half as much. What then can 

 justily a great addition to our standing army, ex- 

 cept that the nation is much weaker now than it 

 was then? With respect to taxation, it is still 

 more evident, that an increase of population is 

 made to produce national poverty, when it is con- 

 sidered to vyhat an extent it has' been used as a 

 pretext (or increasing it, whilst our exports of na- 

 tive commodities and population, have preserved 

 a close alliance with each other. The state of agri- 

 culture, in consequence of a reversal of the old 

 maxim, " that people are the wealth and strength 

 o( nations," into the new one, " that they are the 

 property of governments," is our increase of 

 taxation for the permanent expenses of o-overn- 

 ment, from ^3,688,043 to ^17,288,669, inlwenty 

 lour years. Add to this item, the state taxes, the 

 bounties to banks and manufacturers, the increased 

 difficulty of subsistence, and unavoidable private 

 expenses, and it will be evident, that as the far 

 greater part of the total must fall upon agriculture, 

 the den)ands upon her have, at length, exceeded 

 the whole amount of her share of the national ex- 

 ports. From this cause, therefore, I deduce the 

 bad state of agriculture in the United States. 



Another idea has been urged as an auxiliary (o 

 that we have just examined, still more lallacious, 

 and equally ruinous to agriculture ; namely, "that 

 a depreciation of money, makes it just to increase 

 salaries and taxation." Our agriculture cannot 

 reimburse itself for our local depreciation, because 

 its prices are fixed chiefly by prices abroad. All 

 other interests can, because their prices are not 

 regulated by foreign prices. As agriculture is the 

 chief victim of this local depreciation, instead of 

 redress, to present her with a new calamity, be- 

 cause she is suffering a great one already, is ma- 

 nifestly unjust. Such a doctrine exposes our go- 

 vernmenis to great temptation. By producing a 

 local and temporary depreciation of an artificial 

 currency, and making it a pretext for raising sala- 

 ries, and then removing the device, they might 

 make what stock-jobbers call "a good speculation." 

 An occasional temporary advance abroad of agri- 

 cultural prices, would also furnish them with fre- 

 quent pretexts of the same kind ; and as the sala- 

 ries are never diminished because agricultural 

 prices fall, the effect to agriculture, (iom nominal 

 high prices, produced by a local depreciation, is a 

 real increase of taxation, and from temporary high 

 prices, a permanent increase of taxation j so that 

 high prices of all kinds, instead of relieving her, 

 are only in the end an aggravation of her oppres- 

 sions. The case of a (amine displays their pretext 

 for increasing salaries in its true countenance. A 

 famine of bread, tobacco, cotton, or rice abroad, 

 or of specie at home, will cause an increase of 

 prices. Are such famines, particularly the last, 

 good reasons (or increasing salaries? In like 

 manner, prices will rise as the fertility of land di- 

 minishes. Does the remedy lie in taxing these 

 lands higher, the poorer they become? But if 

 the fluctuation of prices is a proper rule for graduat- 

 ing salaries, then a fair reciprocity between the gov- 

 ernment and the people, requires their reduction 

 when prices (all, as well as their increase when 

 prices rise, in order to comply with the rule itself; 

 yet governments never remember this pretended 

 principle, when its application is in fiivor of the 

 people. 



