Delaware journal. [volume] (Wilmington [Del.]) 1827-1832, 1828-05-06

is certainly Enove and appears to be delusive. He
has stated the aggregate amount of wool imported
during the last year, and also that of wooens and
calculated the amount of duties paid on the respec-
tive quantities under the tariff of 1924 assumed
similar amount for the present year and estimating
the aggregate amount of duties that accrue by the
proposed bill from the relative excess he determined
the degree and extent OF protection afforded to the
farmers and manufacturers.
If this proves any thing it is certainly ths-the
greater the mportation,the greater is your protec-
ton. | cannot subscribe to the accuracy of such
system, but prefer the plain and simple statement
which adopts itself to the mind of every man. This
aggregate calculation is unfortunate in its applica-
ton. Should he make similar calculation in 1929,
a small amount of wool being imported, and a large
quantity of woollens, he would conclude the manu-
! facturers derived great protection. And such no
doubt will be the operation if pass the bill re-
ported. would rely with more confidence on the
statement exhibited and laid on the tables, which
presents the subject in its true light. Its practical
affect has been fully explained by the gentlemen
from New York. with peculiar force and truth, and
in manner that must carry conviction to the
derstanding ofevery farmer and wool grower in the
country.
A few remarks to the one dollar minimum.
This, as it appears to me, opens the door to much
fraud, and must defeat the whole system. Mini
e NUNS are adopted for double purpose, as mode
of securing the duty and with view to protect the
e home market hence it is essential they should be
t fixed at proper distance, or the foreign articles
will be introduced, and the effect contemplated by
: your tariff utterly fail. May we not apprehend
e such will be the consequence Of the one dollar
It minimum? Is it not expected by all who have ex-
J. amined the subject Do not all agree that if the
mnimums are too close to each other, as it is the
n fact, with respect to the fifty cents and dollar
r by the bill reported, they will not afford protec-
ton, since even the best judges of cloths cannot
l. determine the actual COST within fifteen twenty.
RI r 49,
'e tween fifty and sixty five cents may be nvoced at
fifty and those costing from dollar to one doll
!, lar and thirty cents, may beinvoced at dollar.
and escape the strCtest scrutiny such is the opiu-
in ion Of men we'll acquainted with the subject, and we
c. have no reason to doubt its accuracy.
s. In adopting this system ofprotection must
a. ceive it upon its true principles Its effect, when
~ properly applied the home market and full
"a ly protects the domestic manufacturer; not from
~ the influence of competition but foreign rival 1t
never has been sanctioned for purposes of revenue--
r such result, from the importation of the article on
. which the duty is imposed, would defeat its object
~ Hence it is always important to ascertain the ability
- to supply the article, before we attempt its pro-
tecton and the duty shall gradually increase until
n from the resources of the country it may be infer
II red the domestic manufacture will equal the demand
The duty imposed is designed for protection and no.
At thing else would not advocate the system for the
he purpose of enrching the Treasury, except in the
nj IL invariably SuCn efeCt by
n increasing the wealth OF the people, and affording
f. the means of consuming and using greater varie-
ch ty and amount of other articles that may be i'm
ported
II We admit the ultimate effect of protection is ex-
IS clusion, but not to the injury ofthe citizens. They
IN derive much advantage from the production of the
90 article at home--competition regulates the
no price-the supply is certan,--and the consumers
ch secure from the fluctuations of the foreign, derive
m equal benefit from the sautary influence of the DO
iii mesc market.
nd Are we to be told this is monopoIy-oppressive
ust to the poor and rulnous in its consequences The
list meaning of the term, thus applied, cannot com
,ot prehend can it properly attach to the system
of protection regulated by the imposition OF pro-
,ch per duties. The idea of monopoly, as applied to
ect nation such this is indefinite it is true such
of thing may exist, arising from the national advants
re- ges of soil and climate, from which important bene.
ich fits are often derived.
in The duty proposed by the amendments is not in
My tended to prohibit the importation of the foregt
has manufacturer and leave exclusively dependen
the on the domestic such is not the design. The dis
of tncton between protection and prohibition, easily
understood. An example of the latter is exhib
ent ted in the corn laws of England and the dsadvan
tages of the same are fully illustrated and explain
UGH ed in report of committee made in the House o
res. Commons, in the year 1921. In this report tn,
d system of protection to the home market, by th
tur imposition of proper duty, strongly recommen
is ded as substitute for that of prohibition. We d
ign not undertake, wish to grant the domestic
ost uacturer exclusively possession but design
US to our own citizens certain advantages, and trus
ZEN to their industry, SKILL and enterprise, to exclude
the foreigner, and occupy that which their situation
'ool entities them to enjoy. =.
This This system of protection has become the polc-
heir of all other nations and why should reject
hen Has not England by Legislation afforded importan
not advantages to her manufacturers we neglect ant
and leave ours to contend on unequal terms To wha