Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-02-23
SPE f. T. CHI
OF
MIR. STEWART,
Of Pennsylvania,
ON THE tn RIFE.
Of Pennsylvania,


ufactures did not it seemed to him to us
tify the wide range Of debate in which
gentlemen had thought proper to indulge.
But since il had been n Me the occasion
of IL general and indiscrmlnate attack up
on the whole system of protection, which
had been denounced III strong and un-
measured terms as a system OF grinding
oppression, of intolerable taXatlon-sup-
porting aristocrats, monopoliss and gam
blers at the expense Of the honest indus
try of the country, it became the duty of
the friends of this policy to rcpcl those
false and unfoundcd charges.
Taxation and monopoly-monopoly s
taxation-was the beginning and end of
all the anti-tarilf defamation in and out
of this House. His object was to exam
inc on what foundation these changes Of
taxation and monopoly rested.
The gentleman from New York, (Mr.
Cambreleng) tells us that he will be able
TO demonstrate bytgures and calculations
that the duties on cottons, woollens and
iron, amount TO from 10 To 90 per cent
he then assumes that these duties operate
as .axes by enhancing the prices Of
the articles upon which they are levied,
and, upon this assumption of the very
matter in dispute, is raised this dcaien-
ing cry of oppression and taxation. Let
us examine this assumption and see If 1t
be true; if not, the whole supcrstructure
must fall Admit the existence Of the
duties as stated-do they enhance the
price, That is the question they do,
then there is some grounds for this clam
or and noise against the tariff; if not :,
there is nOne-now SO lar from ncreas-
ing, he affirmed they had diminished pri-
ces: such always had been and always
would be the effect of adequate protec-
tion; if then their effect had been to re-
duce prices, the opponents OF the tariff
upon their own principles, as advocates
of low prices, were bound to support the
tariff policy What is the practical eff
feet upon prices of these high protecting
duties? This is the great question which
lies at the foundation of the w!}ole sub
ject, and must be first settled before we
can proceed step III the argument. The
gentleman from New York says the du-
ties OH coarse cottons are $50 per cent,
and of course operate as tax Of 80 per
cent on coarse cottOns used by the poor.
Not so; on the contrary he affirmed that
these duties had reduced the taxes levi
ed upon US by England more than 80 pr
cent, this was a wide difference. How
are the facts? lie would state them, and
defed contradiction; in 1916 the du-
ties on coarse cotton goods were impos-
ed; the protection was ample-caplial
was invested-establls llshnfcnts were ex-
tensively erected; American industry g.
skill entered the field of competition with
British monopoly. What was the effect?
Did it increase the price and encourage
monopoly? No, sir. 1t reduced the
prices from 30 cents the yard to 8 cents
In 1916, the date of the cotton tariff, the
price paid for cotton sheeting was 30 cts.
in 1919 it was reduced by competition to
81 cents; in 1898 to II cents; in 1926 to
l3, and IN 1899 having supplied our own,
the struggle for the foreign market bso't
it down to cents. And yet, III the face
Of these indisputable facts, we are grave I
ly told that these protecting duties add
80 per cent. to the taxes of the poor!-
that is, add 10 cents tax on an article
which is bought, tax and all, for 8 cents. .
But the reduction of price is not all; the
effect of these high duties has been to
save millions Of dollars from being sent
abroad to purchase what we now supply
at home; they had created markets for
millions of agricultural produce, afforded
profitable employment to thousands who
would otherwise be idle, and we now ac-
tnally export this article to a large a
mount, (Sl ,278 900 last year, meeting
our great rival in the foreign market, and
overcoming him on equal terms and
were it not for the British protecting du-
ties, we could now sell at the very doors
of the British factories in Manchester s
Liverpool, cheaper and better article
than they manufacture there. They ad-
init onr superiority by their own acts
by countcfeiting the American marks,
for the purpose of introducing their inie-
rior fabrics as American IN the foreI On
markets, where the superiority of our
goods is ascertancd and admitted Such
have been the practical eilectsoi this pol
icy III reference to cotton, the only arti-
Gle TO which early and adequate protec-
tion had been extended and had the
same degree of protection been afforded
at the same time to woollens, it would
have produced the same auspcious re-
suits; and now, instead of sending six or
eight millions of dollars a year to Eng
land to purchase woollens, we should be
exporting millions OF this article also to
foreign countries, bringing back the rich
g.. a A A
And why not? Is not the capacity of