FARMVILLE, March 31, 1842. DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 19th has just come to my hands, having been absent from home. The subject of countervailing duties for the protection of the tobacco interest does not, in my view, differ from the other subjects calling for protection in any material degree; indeed, if there is any difference, the tobacco interest certainly requires less protection than might seem to promise benefit to others. We certainly have no right to complain of England, on account of her high duties on our tobacco, so long as she levies the same duties on like kinds made in other countries. Tobacco is a prohibited growth on the British islands, which causes the whole consumption to be of foreign growth; this is almost a monopoly to the United States. The duty there is to raise revenue, and not to protect their own growth, or drive out ours. This duty is regulated so as to produce the greatest revenue, according to the wisdom of Parliament. In France, tobacco is also a prohibited growth to a great extent; and what is grown is by license from the Government, and the whole matter managed with a view to revenue. The consumption of American tobacco has more than doubled in a few years, owing to its being made a prohibited article of growth in several departments which formerly produced it. Any act on our part discouraging the purchase of our own for French use would drive that Government to other countries, which can and do produce the article. In Spain and Italy American tobacco is mostly used, and the growth prohibited. In the northern countries of Europe the duties are light, but the article is there extensively produced, and any countervailing duty would only tend to lessen the consumption of the American sorts. I see no benefit to be expected by the tobacco interest by departing from what we all, hereabout, consider the true policy: that is, to lay duties with a view to revenue, ad valorem, as far as practicable, which will afford all interests as much protection as they are entitled to; and when duties are laid for such purposes, no foreign customer ought to complain. I have seen an address to the tobacco planters of the United States, from our minister-name not recollected-which appears to me to be a great piece of humbug.

I omitted to say that tobacco in France, produced on French soil, is subject to the degree and system of duties with the American and other foreign growths, and in most of the kingdoms is prohibited to be grown altogether. Surely, then, we have nothing to complain of as regards the course of the French Government, it being by no means intended as protective of their own or prohibitory of ours. I enclose a paper with an article on the subject.

Hon. E. W. HUBARD.

Yours, truly,

W. E. VENABLE.

PETERSBURG, April 9, 1842.

DEAR SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your favor of the 8th inst., just received; and you will acquit me of neglect when I assure you that the previous one to which it refers has never reached me. That any suspicion of the sort may be the sooner removed, I hasten to reply before I have had an opportunity to confer with any of my friends engaged in the

tobacco trade. But when I shall have done so, if their opinions do not coincide with mine, you shall have both sides. My own are given with diffidence, as I may not be in possession of all the lights on the subject.

My opinion is, that any interference by Congress in the tobacco trade between this country and Great Britain and France would be impolitic and injurious. The heavy excise imposed by the former appears to be solely with a view to revenue; and this is confirmed by the fact that she prohibits the cultivation of tobacco at home. There is not, it seems to me, the slightest ground for attributing it to an inimical feeling toward this country, or to a desire to foster the agriculture of any other in preference. Very different is the discrimination she makes in the introduction of lumber and bread stuffs into her colonies, and through them into the mother country, which gives so great an advantage to British over American vessels, and to the merchants of her American colonies. The enor mous excise on tobacco gives rise to so much smuggling that I have no doubt a reduction of it would tend to increase the revenue of Great Britain. But I conceive it would be an unwise policy in us to impose discriminating duties for the purpose of enforcing that reduction, as it might induce her to admit tobacco from other countries on better terms than from ours, and either introduce the cultivation of it elsewhere or cause ours to be imported indirectly through her colonies in British vessels, as is the case with our lumber and grain. It is evident that the revenue she derives from tobacco is too important to be surrendered; and I think we had better rely on the prevalence of that policy, which has been recommended to Parliament, of a general revision and reduction of the tariff and excise, than on any action on our part, tending to avert the adoption of that policy. The regular demand for Virginia tobacco of the quality suitable to the British trade is generally adequate to the product of that quality; and the prices, for a series of years, have been as remunerating to the planter as those of cotton or grain. If the price now is low, so is that of cotton, of pork, of sugar, and, I may add, of the products of other countries, cof-. fee, and every description of manufactured goods, foreign and domestic. The great mass of our tobacco crop is fit only for those continental markets where the duties are moderate, and for making the inferior article called "negro head," which is so extensively manufactured in Virginia, and exported to almost every part of the world, civilized or uncivilized, embracing in some years nearly half the crop.

The same reasoning applies, I think, to our tobacco trade with France. She has a double motive in her monopoly of the article. Besides revenue, it has a political bearing. Those who are licensed to retail must necessarily be supporters of the Government; and so also, I presume, with those who are licensed to cultivate. If we attempt to enforce a free admission of our tobacco, she may increase her cultivation, (for the Government monopolizes all that is grown there;) and she may adopt a similar plan to that recently attempted to improve the culture of cotton in India, by inviting planters from Virginia to introduce their mode of tobacco culture into France; or she may give a preference to the growers of some other country.

I therefore think it is better that Congress should not interfere; and I do not say this as an opponent to a discriminating or protective tariff, for I am in favor of that policy, if not carried too far, which, I fear, is attempted.

Our carrying trade requires protection, and so do many other interests, particularly when exclusion or discrimination exists abroad.

Permit me to suggest that, if there is even a remote prospect of war, the free importation of railroad iron, for all works commenced or projected, (say for a year or more,) is all important for our defence. It cannot be furnished in time, nor at a price to be available, by our own manufacturers. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. E. W. HUBBARD.

SAMUEL MORDECAI.

[May not the proposal to favor the tobacco trade be induced by the expectation of influencing Virginia to go all lengths? Some most extravagant statements of increased consumption at low duties have been published. I place no confidence in such.]

PETERSBURG, April 11, 1842.

DEAR SIR: We coincide in the opinion expressed by Mr. Mordecai, that it would be impolitic to impose discriminating duties for the protec tion of the tobacco trade of Virginia. We consider it very desirable that the tobacco trade with France should be rendered free, if it can be effected by negotiation, or by any action of our Government which may not be prejudicial to our interest, as expressed in S. Mordecai's letter of the 9th inst.

We are, respectfully, your obedient servants,

THOS. BRANCH,
W. J. MORRIS,
WM. F. BOWDEN,
JAMES ORR,

ROBERT LESLIE,
JAMES KERR,

TH. STAMBOUT,
JAMES DUNLOP,
THOS. N. LEE,

JAS. W. McCULLOCH & Co.
PETER MCENERY,
G. V. RAMBAUT,

A. S. NAUSTIDLER,W. A. PAGE,

P. J. DE VOSS,
JOHN NOBLE,
DANIEL FOSTER,
DAVID DUNLOP,

Hon. E. W. HUBARD, Ho. of Reps.

A. PETRIESTON,

N. MACON MARTIN,

JAS. S. TOLER,

AND. KEVAN.

PETERSBURG, April 13, 1842.

SIR: Your respects of the Sth inst. are before me. I, in common with most or all of our dealers, think no action of a retaliatory sort can be taken by Congress to promote the interest of the growth of tobacco in our State. England must raise revenue, and she, as we should do, does it on luxuries, and tobacco comes under that head. It might be profitable to our planters, possibly, if England were to reduce the duty on tobacco, as more would no doubt be consumed; but, on the other hand, we could raise but little more than 50,000 hogsheads under any circumstances, and therefore Virginia would be but little benefited: the price in England would be no higher, as another portion of our country would grow any

excess of consumption over the present. It would, no doubt, be beneficial if France could be induced to change her system of monopoly; at present, none but the contractor of the French Government will send tobacco there, and therefore there is no competition for that sort of tobacco at our home markets. You see at once the planter's interest suffers in this way.

Manufactured tobacco is admitted into Canada at a low duty, and I am disposed to think the Canadian merchant may have it sold at less duty in England than ours. Much manufactured tobacco is now disposed of in England, and, if consumed there, may be a matter of investigation. I think, however, much of it is sent to the South Sea islands.

Please excuse this hasty and imperfect sketch; civility seemed to require that I should answer so respectful a communication as yours to me. Very respectfully yours,

THOS. BRANCH & BROTHER.

HON. E. W. HUBARD, Washington.

LYNCHBURG, April 13, 1842.

DEAR SIR: The letters which you did me the honor to address me, asking my views in regard to the policy of retaliatory duties as a means of protection to our tobacco interest, are now before me, and I ask your indulgence for not having responded to the first sooner.

I am sure you overvalue any opinion I can give upon the subject, and I frankly admit it is one that has perplexed me no little.

Although I am what is called a tariff man, I am of opinion that legislation upon this subject is best to be avoided; and when we consider the vast extent of our country, that the growth of this article is so well adapted to and for many years past the most reliable crop that can be made in Virginia, I incline to the opinion that, if I were in a position to control the subject, I should avoid the course that would force or encourage the cultivation of the article in other countries. May I ask the favor of your presenting my respects to the Hon. Walter Coles and Hon. George B. Cary. With the highest regard, your most obedient,

Hon. ED. W. HUBARD.

J. M. WARWICK.