, 1842-06-25

other European nations, ought to be SUI
fcient to deter us from following their
example. 1t would be uncharitable per-
haps, to suppose that the advocates Of
the protective policy desired to see our
labourers reduced TO a similar condi-
who will question that this
policy has been the chief instrument in
reducing the English operative to the de-
plorable condition in which we now find
him, and at the same time in ~elcvating
the capitalist to the pinnacle of wealth
and opulencc to which he has reached.
But say gentlemen on the opposite side,
tive should be Independent Of other ma
tons" In other words, W. should go
to war with Deity. He has adapted one
country to the growth oftea, another He
has fitted for manufacturing, and a third
He has made suited TO the growth and
production of bread stuils. He las made
all nations dependant upon each other,
and the nation that interferes i'll His ar
rangemcnt, throws the whole system in
TO confusion and disorder. What would
be thought of the individual in Missouri,
who would go TO raising his own coffee,
manufacturing his own shoes, hats, and
farming utensils, and as Il opponents
will have it, "bc Independent Of his
neighbour and every n clsc?' How
long would it be before he would be
ground to the dust in poverty-without
any Of the comforts or luxurics of life?
But such 4 policy would not be less Diet
rimcntal TO the interests Of 4 nation than
TO those Of an indiyidual-and what is
true Of one is true of the other. The
same labCur that it would require for
him TO make an axe OF a plough, ifappli-
ed TO the culture Of wheat or tobacco,
would buy him a dozen axes or ploughs.
1t was contended that the diversity of
interests III the American States, and
their different ~aptitudes for the produc-
ton IF different values, would forever
render 4 protective or rctaliatory tariff
highly oppressive to threc-fourths Of the
people. According TO the late census re-
turns, Mr.. B. showed, that Of the four
articles OF wool, iron, leather and cotton,
eight of the northeastern states produc-
ed in 1910, 9,OOo,O 600 more than the
eighteen S. w. and western and middle
states, while they (thc eight states, con-
sumed Of that amount $40, 10000, lcav-
ing after deducting the amount Of foreign
export, about $25,95i,0 900, as the con-
sumption of the rest of the Union of the
domestic manufactures above mentioned.
The duty on this amount Of value if i'm
ported al the average al valcrem in 1910
of 80 per cent. would be 4 little rising
$9,00o,0 600. The feet that the manulac-
turcrs now demand 30 per cent. ad valo-
rem on those articles, in order TO CON-
pete with the foreign production, proves
conclusively that the consumers in the
the eighteen states pay the whole duty
$50, 900 ,O00) on the domestic manuiac-
lures more than they could have pur-
chased the foreign article for. In other
words, the people Of these eighteen
states paid in 1910 the smGR sum of So
100000 for protection, not one dollar OF
which went into the National Treasury,
but into the pockets of the manufacturer.
Ofthis sum the people ofthis state paid
about S325,0O0. 1t is stated in the Re
port Of the minority of the committee on
manufactures, ofthc House of Rcpresen-
~tativcs, that bar iron can be delivered on
the dock in N. York, after paying 90 per
cent. duty, for $37 per ton, which is
$43 less than the consumer has TO pay at
the same place.
Mr.. b. made an extract from the Ed
inburgh Review showing the loss a ma
ton frequently sustains from attempting
TO encourage manufactures, by the legis-
lation Of government. France has been
Tor many years attempting to encourage
the growth of beet root sugar and the
sugar Of her colonies. The difference
between the cost of foreign and domestic
sugar amounts TO 30, 900 francs.
Under the present system, it would take
twenty years for France to supply her
self with sugar, and the present protec-
ton costs about seven millions of dollars
per annum. Suppose this to continue