Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-02-07

protection to the manufacturer This position is
more specous than sound. A judIcious tariff does
protect the manufacturers, though al the same time
II reduces prices Discriminating duties enable
our own manufacturers to compete with the for
eign' ny securing them against the policy to which
foreign manufacturers frequently have recourse,
lot the sole purpose Of destroying our infant es-
adjustments. ! am aware TIM, il il difficult to
present an abstract principle clearly to the under
standing of the House and, as the whole subject
is one OF practical character, | will illustrate
this principle by taking familiar c0se.
An article now free Of duty, is selling in our
market for 81 20 the elements which make up
this price are these cost in foreign market 81
cost OF importation 10 cents importers profits 10
cenis-making 81 20. At this price the article
can be manufactured in this country. Now let
one OF our citizens 90 into the manufacture Of this
article, and what will be the result ? Why the for
eign manufacturer, who has heretofore enjoyed .
the monopoly of our market and who is ENJOYING
large profits, will Immediately put the article at
e5 cents TO the American importer this being the
cost of the article. He will willingly forego all
profit for the time being for the purpose of crush
! ing the infant establishments in this country and
the importer will give up one half OF his profits,
rather than lose this portion of his business. This
will reduce the price of the article 3 cents, bring
ing 1t down TO 81 05. The American manuiac-
lurer Immediately finds the article in the market
al this reduced price, which is in fact less thnn he
can manufacture the article for. He must. there
IOIe, uDdnuOn MS business, give up his establish
Inent at great sacrifice, and yield the market 10
the foreign manufacturer, who finding his new RI
val destroyed, will Immediately demand the old
| price, and pnt his article al 81 aud the copsun-
er in this country will be compelled to pay s 20,
or perhaps 81 %, to mike up the loss which the
importer and foreign manufacturer sustained dur
ing the period Of competition. This is the result
when the article is free of duty.
Now, we will take the same articles, at the same
price, both IN Europe and America, with protec-
tive duties. A duty OF Is cents is imposed on the
article, 10 encourage domestic manufactures
This, added to the former price, $780, would
bring the erticle up to s 80 The foreign manu-
facturer fears that he shall lose the American mar
ket and consequently, TO prevent surplus in his
own home market, aud to create a surplus here,
he will at once put his article at cost 80 cents
the importer will forego half his profits and take
off cents which will bring the article down TO
$l,2O the very price which the article brought
before the duty was imposed. In the meantime,
the American manufacturer produces the article,
which he can sell for the same price, Here, then,
the manufacturer is protected, and the consumer
has no additional price TO pay. The importation
will not be materially checked and this, with the
domestic production, will create surplus. which
will tend TO reduction of the price. A sharp
competition will ensue, and necessity, the mother
OF invention, will bring out Improvements in ma
chinery, so TINT the article can be produced at a
cheap rate. The skill also which is acquired will
enable the manufacturer TO turn Oil The GTtCle AZ
less expense, aud SO afford it TO the consumer at
| reduced price Thus ar will discriminating du-
ties protect the manufacturer and at The same
time cheaper the article. Is it rot so? Does not
experience justify this position? Without du'
lty, the foreign manufacturer sells al the maximum
price; with the duty, he sells at the minimum
wuhont the duty, he could prohtnbly reduce his
price TO destroy our manufacturer; with the du-
ny, he must come down to the lowest price TO com
pete with him.
Gentlemen have spoken of protective tariff as
an exploded doctrine. IN exploded doctrine -
When, where, and by whom was this doctrine ex-
poded demand 1t was the doctrine of the
Constitution. 1t had the support of the first Pres
ident and the first Congress. Yes, sir General
Washington, who President of the Conven-
ton which formed the Constitution, in his first
message 10 Congress says: "The advancement of
agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, IN all
proper mems, will not trust, need recommended
ton In compliance with this suggestion, the
first Congress- in their first public act-l say first
for though il stands second in the laws, the first
act was simply an act binding all officers of Gov
eminent to the Constitution an act imposing
solemn oath TO adhere to that sacred Instruments
the first Congress, composed in no small degree of
] the very men who formed the Constitution, in
their first public act employ Ibis language in the
preamble: "Whereas i is necessary, for the sup
port of the Government for the discharge of The
debt of The United States, and for The encourage
men and protection If manufactures that duties be
laid upon goods wares, AID merchandise import
ed:
q" he it enacted" &c. This act then goes on 10
provide for discriminating duties Now, care
not whether these duties he high or low. 1t is
Sufficient that they were laid to alse re enue and
to protect manufactures. will not 20 through the
list of Presidents or precedeus on this subject;
this has been done by my friend from Vermont
Mr. Sade i but will say that every President
from General Washington down TO The present
Executive, unless il be the elder Adams, has re.
cognised the doctrine of protecting domestic in
dustry, and has recommended encouraging manu-.
lectures. When Washington, the President of the
Con, entiom that framed The Constitution Madi.
son. the writer Of that matchless instrunent; and
Jefferson. the great democratic expourder of il,
concur in the opinion, that Congress has the right