Note 15—page 186.

Production and Consumption of Cotton.

In 1834, one of our most able manufacturers, M. Kœkhlin, made the following estimate of the production and consumption of cotton throughout the world.

Production.

In the United States437,500,000 lbs.
In India75,000,000
In Brasil30,000,000
In Bourbon, Cayenne, &c.7,500,000
In Egypt and the Levant25,000,000
Total,575,000,000

Consumption.

In England375,000,000 lbs.
In France100,000,000
In the United States45,000,000
In China37,500,000
In Switzerland, Belgium, &c.42,500,000
Total,600,000,000

Several other countries not enumerated above yield cotton. China produces some which she consumes, or exports under the form of nankeens; Mexico produces nearly enough for her own consumption; Mr Kœkhlin has meant to speak only of what belongs to the general commerce. He has somewhat overstated the consumption of England, and underrates that of the United States.

Note 16—page 154—omitted.

Note 17—page 161.

Trial of the Incendiaries for burning the Ursuline Convent.

The intolerant spirit of a part of the Protestant population was offended by the sight of the Ursuline Convent on Mount St. Bendict, within the limits of Charlestown, a town adjoining Boston. The sisters devoted themselves to the instruction of young girls, and many Protestant families had confided daughters to their care. Every thing proves that they were by no means devoured by a spirit of proselytism. In the beginning of August, 1835, a report got about in Charlestown, that one of the sisters, a young woman, was detained in the convent by force. The Selectmen of the town had a meeting, five of them went to the convent, which they examined from cellar to garret, had an interview with the sister who was represented as a victim of the Catholic discipline, and became satisfied that she was there of her own free will. This conviction was made known to the public. But on the night of August 12th, the convent was surrounded and attacked by a handful of ruffians, at the head of whom was one John Buzzell, a brickmaker, noted for his brutal character. The sisters were driven from the convent with violence; every thing was plundered; the tombs of the dead were forced open. The building was then fired; it was burnt in sight of the Selectmen; the Boston firemen hastened to the spot, but were repulsed by the populace by main force.

Several men, taken in the act, were arrested, and among others Buzzell; they were tried in Boston in 1835.[EK] The witnesses were afraid to bear testimony, a mysterious influence had changed their language; the public prosecutor, who had previously demanded in vain a postponement of the trial, until the causes which instigated the violence had been traced, pleaded the cause of order with a generous indignation. All the prisoners were acquitted, except one poor youth of the name of Marcy who was sentenced to fifteen or twenty years imprisonment; but public opinion soon after obliged the Executive to grant him a pardon. Buzzell and Kelly, one of his accomplices, became heroes; they were carried about in triumph, and a subscription was made for their benefit. The sisters petitioned the Massachusetts legislature for indemnity; the most intelligent citizens of Boston interested themselves in their favour, but the House of Representatives rejected the petition by a large majority. On the anniversary of the outrage, the populace of Charlestown celebrated it as a day of rejoicing, and got up a shooting match, the target being a representation of the lady superior of the convent. The Selectmen succeeded in suppressing the figure, but not the procession. Finally, to crown these deeds of impudence and savage violence, two of the incendiaries, in 1836, presented a petition to the legislature to be indemnified for the damages they had suffered by the trial. The committee to whom the petition was referred, reported a grant of 500 dollars to each of these wretches; but to the honor of Massachusetts, their report was rejected on the second reading.

Note 18—page 172. Omitted.

Note 19—page 180. Omitted.

Note 20—page 193.

Taxation.

It has repeatedly been made a question of late, whether the United States were more or less heavily taxed than France. The subject may be considered under several points of view. The systems of Taxation in the two countries are very different. The taxes in the United States are less numerous than they are in France, and are differently distributed. The country population, that is the great majority, pay much less in the United States than in France; but in the large towns the inhabitants pay nearly as much as with us, except in Paris. The disproportion between the two countries becomes much greater, if instead of estimating the amount in money, we give it in day's labour, which is the most rational manner. The day-wages of a labourer being about threefold as much in the United States as they are with us, and other things being in the same proportion, it follows, that, in the former, a tax of three dollars to three dollars and a half, which is about the general average, is not more burdensome to the mass of the people, than a tax of one third that sum would be in France. The average tax in France, or six dollars a head, is equivalent to twentysix days' work in our country; while the average in the United States is only equivalent to four days' work in that country.

It is true, that, amongst us, all the public expenditures are comprised in the budget; all our taxes amount to 190 million dollars. But in the United States, there are various expenses supported by individuals and companies, which do not appear in the sum of the public taxes. Toll is paid on a very large number of roads: public worship is maintained at the expense of the worshippers; hence heavy charges on the rich.

It is important to remark, that the public revenue in the United States is almost wholly employed in a productive manner, in useful undertakings, in public works, schools, and various kinds of improvements. There is no Federal debt, that of most of the States and towns is inconsiderable, there are no retiring pensions, and the army is small; whilst more than half of our budget, or 118 million dollars, is devoted to the charges on the public debt, pensions, and the sea and land forces, we cannot expect to restore the balance in our favour, because we cannot dismiss our soldiers, nor declare a national bankruptcy; but we might diminish our present inferiority (paradoxical as it may seem), by adding some millions to our budget for useful and productive works.

The military service itself is a public burden and a very heavy one; but it is difficult to rate the amount of this in money. In France it takes one man out of eighty inhabitants from labour, but in the United States only one out of 2,300. This tax might be lightened, by employing the army in public works.

We may also notice the two following differences, which appear to me essential ones, between American and French taxes:—

1. The American taxes, whether it be from the mode of their assessment, or from the difference of conditions of the two countries, never press heavily upon the taxables nor give them any uneasiness; they never embarrass transactions nor interrupt business. On the contrary, amongst us the tax is often an oppressive burden; our registry dues, and excise on property changing hands, often occasion serious embarrassments and even insurmountable obstacles in the way of enterprise.

2. In the United States the treasury fears to incur the public odium; amongst us the most respectable citizens are subjected to the most vexatious treatment; our officers of the customs have adopted practices unworthy of a civilised people; our wives and daughters must submit to be searched in the most shameless manner by vile hags, and these brutal proceedings have not the poor excuse of being useful to the customs. Their avowed object is to prevent the smuggling of articles, with which, in spite of three lines of custom-house officers, the country is inundated, and which it is well known are brought in by dogs[EL] on a large scale, and not in the pockets of private persons. The branches of industry, which they are designed to protect, are altogether of secondary importance, and cannot be weighed in the balance against public decency.