The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1827-02-28
For the Massachusetts Spy.l

Mr.. EDIToR-
In your comments upon my former commu-
nlcation, you have asserted that, if did not
intend to deceive others, must have been de-
ceived myself You have also charged me
with distorting the arguments of those who de-
fend protecting duties, and, generally, with
unfair reasoning. | must be permitted to re-
pei these charges, especially as they are pre-
ferred by the Editor Of the Gazette, in which
my article appeared because, whatever an
editor says, Is very apt TO be believed by his
patrons.
First--as 10 deceiy!ng, or being deceived
Whai intended 10 advance, was, that man
utacturers OF woollen cloths had clear ad-
vantage, III our market, over foreign competi-
| tors, OF mere than SO per cent. by reason of
the duty and the necessary expenses Of trans
portation. Now, if we can manufacture that
article as cheap as it can be done elsewhere.
as some profess to believe, it must be perfectly
obvious that the foreign manufacturer. if he
sells his goods in our market below what they
could be manufactured here, must subject
himself to loss OF more than so per cent. on
their cost, provided be pays the duty. That
loss must have been incurred if, as you have
repeatedly declared, woollen cloths are now
SOLO below their ordinary cost ia England. So,
we can raise corn here as cheap as can be
oone IN Onlo, the farmer, who sends il from
thence to market in this State, and sells it at
the original cost, must lose the expenses of
transportation.
Next, as to distorting the arguments of 9th.
ers-l found il stated in the Spy of January 8.
that broadCloths which were worth "a a ward
before the present duties were imposed. can
now be purchased for So. 1t was also there
stated that similar effects had been produced
oy the present tariff, upon other woollen goods
any these facts were adduced as arguments in
its favor. In the same paper found another
statement, probably made by the editor him.
sell, that the present prices Of woollen goods
n"~e become reduced below the cost of pro-
sSSsa;s to eTe 9fSSland as well as here now
, the trouble to look d person, who will take
q ments, if have misrepreseah,edlff erent state
the arguments OF those who there ss.aenls distorted
increase of duties. found inconsisteScsIsse, an
their reasoning, and ! endeavored to expose
1 them. !fthat is unfairness or distortion. / am
guilty OF the offence.
In the course Of your comments, perceive
you nave adopted the main arguments used by
Mr.. Davis 10 his speech in Congress That
speech appears to me TO be replete with soph-
istical and lalacious reasoning, and | trust if
will be amply refuted on the floor of Con.
gress. 1t may not be amiss, however, at this
time, to take brief notice Of one or two of its
prominent topics, and to point out few Of
the errors which it contains.
Mr.. Davis makes the assumption that il wa,
intended, by the last tariff. to give to woolleu
$ manufacturers clear and decided advantage
over foreign competitors of 1884, per cent: and
j the law having failed, as he says, to do that.
5 he contends that measures ought to be devils
ed which will produce such an effect. He
} then enters into a calculation TO show that
! the protection is not in the ratio of the duty.
In consequence OF certain Disadvantages I'M
, der which manufacturers labor in procuring
their materials. | marvel that he did not al
: so urge the great difference in the price OF
f manual labor here and in England, as proof
r that the protection is not as great as was in
? tended. These disadvantages, excepting tina
arising out OF the duty on wool, were. un-
doubtedly, taken into consideration when the
, law was enacted, and the duty on the manu-
featured article was intended 10 coupteryail
them. That it is sufficient for that purpose, |
: see no reason to doubt.
1t is said, however, that the duty on wool
! cancels large portion of the protection at
forded by the duty on the manufactured arti-
, Gle, and that the advantage, which England
has over us in that respect, has been gained
since the passage Of the tariff by the reduce
, ton of the duty on wool imported into that
, country. As to this question, must ask a
moments attention to the arithmetical compu-
tations of MIR. Davis. He says that, ''ii W.
assume 90 cents as the average price OF WOO
s in Europe, such as is mostly used in our man.
ufactures, it will come charged to the English
manufacturer at hall penny pound, or "a
3 bout four per cent. on the cost but the wool
brought into our market pays duty of thirty
, per cent. on the COST" and that, in conse-
| quence of this difference, "the English manu-
{ facturer obtains his raw material 26 per cent.
cheaper than the American" Whoever will
, take the trouble to calculate for himself, will
, find that the difference, on that account,
would be but 20 per cent. instead of 26 per
cent. that is, II wool charged with duty of
four per cent. would cost $50, the same wool,
il charged with duty of thirty per cent.
would cost 500.
To the thirty per cent. duty on wool, Mr..
Davis proceeds to add ten per cent. for freight.
and ten per cent. more for other charge.
which he does not name and in this way
he proves that pound of wool which, in Eu-
rope costs 20 cents, will cost here 80 CENTS
He then estimates the wool at one-third the
expense of yard Of cloth, and finally arrives
! at the conclusion, that the American manu-
facturer pays so cents more for the wool in
yard Of cloth, which costs three dollars, than
the foreign manufacturer does, which, he
f says, is one-sxth Of the whole cost, and equal
, to one half of the protecting duty. This con.
clusion is also grossly inaccurate and il is to