The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1828-04-16

This whole 72 millions, it is alleged, costs the
consumers at least thirty. and two thirds per
cent. or about twenty-six millions OF dollars
more than il otherwise would, in consequence
of the duty Deduct, therefore, from it, what
was paid into the Treasury, and there remains
5!2, $50 .245, which is paid by the consumer
for the benefit of the manufacturer. | do not
vouch for the accuracy of these estimates, but
take them as find them. 1t is admitted that
large portion of this immense amount consists OF
household manufactures, because 1t is known,
that it is neither imported, nor otherwise made
here. What the proportion is, we are not in
formed, though it is said, that, as far back as
1870, three fourths of all the goods consumed
in the country were made in the household
way Now let us look, for moment, at this
system of enormous bounLies, which bestows
three ioufths of this sum, about seventeen
millions of dollars, annually, upon the manu-
/ faeturers Of household goods The manutac-
/ turers of household woollens are almost exclu-
sively land holders, who raise, for their con-
venience, sheep, and, having no better market
/ for their wool, make it into goods to clothe
their families. IL is not pursued with view TO
( make money, but is engraited upon the general
system of household economy, iii such way as
/ to make it more convenient to make the goods
I than TO buy them. 1t is subject which needs
( no explanation with the farmer; for he under
stands, without the labored description of any
one, how and why it is done, and, at the same
/ time, he knows the business wonld afford no
/ profit if he were to undertake to manufacture
for the market; but you could not. astonish him
more than BY asserting, that he participates in
an annual bounty paid by the consumer for the
4 benefit of such manufacturers amounting to
the sum of seventeen millions of dollars. lie
would repol the allegation as destitute of the
color of truth. He would say, have manufac-
tured when there was no duty-when the duty
was low, and when hgh-I have clad my fami-
" in the goods and wore them out, but we
neither received benefit or injury from the du-
ties, | neither paid nor received any money,
nor heard ofany bounty. ~, but, says the in
geniOus s0phist, when you manufactured you
were protected by the duty and when you wore
tie cloth you were consumer, and as GOnSun,-
er, you paid 70 yourself as manufacturer the
bounty. In this the farmer would say, there is
more subtility than money. The proposition is
unintelHgible and unsubsta:tal. for it Processes
TO show bounty in money, and yet none exists.
never supposed, nor can be made to under
stand that the duties produce any effect what
ever upon this branch of manufacturing our
cloth costs us neither more Tor less, nor does it
wear longer or shorter for that cause Such is
the result that every practical man will arrive
at who looks at the proposition that the house
hold manufacturer receives bounty
The argument, however, which is urged to
prove that duties are bounties, paid by the con-
sumner for the benefit of the manufacturer, who
t manufactures for the market, may deserve more
serious consideration
So far as respects the present state of things
the argument has been answered for it has
been shown, that the system If duties is such
that, coupled with the evasionsof them the law
affords no protecting advantageto the manufac-
turer, and consequently he can nave no bounty
from that source. But as the manufacturer
asks for a law which shall affoId him aid and
protection in his business, we ought to look al
the probable effect of such law, to determine
whether it will bear oppressively upon the com.
munity or not.
Remainder neat aeeek1