Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-01-30
POMITIQAG,s

In our last paper, gave the Report of the Com
mttee on Manufactures, made 10 the House of Repre-
sent yves on the 9th inst upon the subject of the Ia
rlii, in which ii declared be the opinion OF tho
Comnitee, that cit is noNpedient, at the present time
to make any change in the existing laws intended for the
ai and protection of domestic industry" This opinion
may be regarded evidence of the OF majority
OIL inc committee, who arc favorable TO protective laws,
anu is important in point of view. IL establishes
me TACT that the American System has been brought TO
halt, and consider that the friends of agricultural
and commercial freedom, have cause 10 congratulate
themselves upon this suspicious symptom. high du-
ties are calculated TO augment the wealth of the nation
aud promote the prosperity OF the people, why hesitate
To push onward when the cry OF all the woollen manu-
lecturers, Is, We are not sufficiently protected. If
doubling of the duties low priced wooens he as
sential to the salvation of the manufacturers as has
been over and again proclaimed by their most dis
tnguished champions, why not abolish the one dollar
minimum and thus accomplish that which has been the
burthen OF The writings and speeches of editors and
orators for year pas But no. Tho report in ques ion
recommends an abstainins from all ments and as
this is the first instance since 1916, of a hesancy on
the part OF the advocates OF restriction TO push still fur
Their thor avorite policy, 1t be regarded evidence
of do Ibt TO the efficiency OF the American system or
WIN these preliminary REMARKS we shall take the H.
oery OF commenting on such parts Of the rene strike
us as as oe,ns particularly opep I" ""'','m
o,eoS on from ditierent in,eresNT 10
l and INJURY to non, was delicate and difficult I'M
dcrtaking In this position, we differ from tbc Con-
mittee 1t was OF the easiest and most sinnIs tn
could be accomplished only by one mode
oue =" as 10 abstain from granting the reques of eli
her here be any doubt OH this subjective think il
De removed by slight attention very simple iIIstr
uon a natter says 10 Congress, 81 wish monopoI,
mahl Jaw whch shall prohibit all other persons from
soiiinS mats Says the shoemaker have no obicc
tons that tho halter shall charge every BODY SnyJbI
prlce Tor his hats, as only wear one in wear nroiI
cd that Congress will prohibit all persons but me- e.
selling shoes" Says the tailor will orroa a.. o "
halter and shoemaker may both tax the whole ,at; r
their hats and shoes, provided that an equal yofecj
ing clothes but me Congress listens -, ToIy ron max
s'ons and grants them the desired monopolies r Nov
now does the matter stand? The halter ravs tho
shoemaker and the tailor tax, upon what 10 W
sumes OF their fabrics, but remuneration Gor hi
conPels all the rest Of has cusfomsrs TO nav , '
nm Inc shoemaker and the tailor do the same tbi,
VOW IL hiS sort oil PTofectt0n monopoly were -
tended through the whole circle of emnlovmon,s e.
each ind ldua were bound TO pay TO others as much 80
ounerS Pad MIN, then the protection would be equal -
nat man paid out OF one pocket, woud bo naid H.
into the other and each one at tho end of The 80
would stand in the relative position win ,Ii ~.
iere nee however that each would have mad fcwc c
he comforts and nccessaries Of life than il
had been left free. But for protection TO he eni ii
emPioyfnents must have monopoes, and as all car an,
nave ,hem' 1t follows, that justicc to all and iniur, 10
none cah never be the result of protective ~
LdtSSesitous fare, is the only sound doctrine r.; h
cases ana 10 suppose that laws which authorize dozen
"ncs 10 eVy contributions upon six hundred are enai
OF JUST IN thclr operation IS just rational as TO sno
that ii would be advantageous for communal ~,
every hue man should be allowed TO rob all the res far
u can readily be seen that there could DO no equal us
uCe ia the case unless each individual was aIloyoS .,
rob all the others Now, if the question wcro 800 ~
put, shall each in the land be allowed IN ii 'y
the others, shall each he protected in the az
s PropeTywhich OF tho two propositions would he mos,
likely to be adopted? The answer to this can =. -,
In favor OF the latter, and this is the answer III
congress ought to have given 10 thu applicants for pro
lection. rr' 'o pro-
But "the tariff Of 1923, adopted as tbe bo,, No..
e, uhder al circumstances that could be depised 10
accomplish the desired object" Wo think not In
some particulars defeated the objects for which i,
osenslDly enacted Itimposed high duties upon mani,
a,es, and az the same time high duties upon the To-
reign materials, without which they could not he rnads
~ thus destroyed the nters it was de stincd IN iI
~ may perhaps have been the only tnoosure .L;aI
under all circumstances, could have been 1tert.d t
majority OF Congress. But it contained AS much bi, |
tor as sweet, as much poison as honey; and tis soI
ruin - now known to many, who 50 far from reoarJn
I as measure advantageous 10 the rnanuf,ct,r;s
interest, have sgmaiizod it "the bill of abo,nins
IONS 80 fully we Of the opinion that This cni,,'
an appro rate one, that do not believe tbora ~ =;
he whole law single provision, which, bv itself
woV'd nave had majority Of Congress in its favor
owed 10 De symmetrical bya majority Of those vhe
were present at its BIRTH be held up as an idol Iicb
would be sacriegc TO toticb2 ' '' ~
But"it is now the law of the land Ttiu e,
lately - but too true but we hone il will no, - w
main So Indeed, think it cannot so centinue G ,
years longer, II the caamites experienced in the ma
nuldcturing districts, be extensive az renrescrJ
smuggling is now making rapid strides towards fxcd
Suence amongst us, AMI shall he greatly mistaken
announcer season does not witness New Fnoland Lcr
sei coming to her senses and calling ONT for tho .1t
I"D %',c IN tat quarter the shoe pnchcs viii re-
o"Ocu ghpe'sas may he seen in another part of tbi
paper "nefc VIC nave given extracts from Two o,cr
70 2 member OF Congress 'o'S
Tho Committee think "tbat ans, ar. q, t
sung provisions, at the present time would be- who'll
This is indeed nuito ,roJ,,LI, LILY
o',pS .D,cPca portions OF the law, which have been
'9"nd hurtu 10 particular interests would ,,ccf i,
pe Undivided opposition OF the members from, H. 80
arih States. Whenever sense OF iusticc III, l,'
ups inc Sorh and Induce lis representatives 10 pro
poe modification, which "shall oiustico y, Po
VIII i'IT cost ready 10 ion with them in rsi.' Wy