New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-08-04
ost important are as follows {:

There, says the Jour. Com. only see how liberia
England is becoming! /" Her Tariff of duties stands
"a open contradictions to tho falsehoods which
have il,ed Legislative halls and our Periodi-
q cal press, and in haniliatng contrast with the
narrow and mistaken policy ofonr country for the
las. twenty years. The top-ine of the british
1.Taritf is twenty per cent. with few exceptions
only How vastly advantageous would the trade
be between the two countries, were our own
~policy bat as enlightened and liberal as that OF
- Great Britain I" She is willing to take our
Manufactures at 10 70 90 per cent. on her own
home Valuation, )-knowiog that no nation in the
world can manufacture SO as 10 underseli her
abundant capital and furnishing Labor; she will
take all the raw materials of her Manufactures at
low duties from an obvious dictate of sef-preset-
wilton: she cannot hope to undersell the world
with her manufactures, if she taxes the raw mate
rails heavily: that would be killing the goosa that
laws the golden eggs. She therefore takes Cotton,
Wool, Hemp, Flax, Ashes, SIC. at low duties, and
makes show of taking Iron, Manufactures, &c.
at low rates-knowiDg well that whether the duty
be 10 per cent. or 100 next 20 will be import
ed and the Journal of Commerce covers up with
these so per cent. on Butter Cheese, Sc. 100 per
cent on Beet, Bacon, Grain, and all kinds of Tim
ber and goo per cent on Tobacco, and says in sub
stance, Just see how low the British Duties are
How can we refuse to keep open our ports to
British goods, when she is generous, so LIBERAL
SO ultra Free Trade, Lock, ye Home Leaguers !
land be ashamed OF yourselves!"
But the Morning Herald of the same hour
forces Free Trade srgumen, from directly oppo-
site premises! The Money Article labors to show
tba, Great Britain is breaking down and going to
ruin under her restrictive, proaibisors, monspo-
H=iag system, and parsdes lot of figures to show
how France, on the contrary. is tourishing under
comparative Free Trade, Such certainly IS the
argument though the writer states i, rather GIN
gesly. But he eulogizes the policy of France, and
especially that of Napoleon, the reverse of that
Of England, and working the destruction of her
moaopolRing, grasping spirit that same
Frsnee being and that same Napoleon having been
the most stubborn and ultra in their adherence to
she Protective Policy always. IfFrance is more
prosperous than England it certainly is an argu-
nsent for Protection, not for its opposite Butwe
place little reliance on these comparisons, OF
which the clements are so vague and uncertaia
Now we do not base the necessity OF prolec-
ton on the fact Of Foreign Tariffs shutting cut our
Produce. We strike AT the foundation, affirming
tina, it can never be good policy, but must be gross
impohcy, in any nation-certainly in oars--to pur-
chase Manufactures after II has attained the capa-
city to produce .hem. We insist and show that
no matter what may be the relative money prices,
this Country must, in the nature of things, pay
more in her products in actual values for Cloths
and Wares manufactured abroad than if produced
at home. We advocate Protection, not because
it is best for this Country, but for all Countries,
that each should manufacture for itself Wehold
thai in this way very great saving of Labor will
be effected TO al--that there will be fewer nom
producers or intermediates, ard that Labor, in
whatever productive capacity will be more steadily
employed and far better rewarded. We advocate
Protection, because we know that one hundred
thousand manufacturing Labsrcrs can make just
81 much Cloth in this Country as in England,
(wa,er-power being cheaper than stesm,) while