Litchfield enquirer., 1842-01-06

shown by the fact, that in lo36, when the l protection was ample to manufacturers, the | revenue was also so ample, that to get rId of ! it Congress had to pass the Distribution Act: | If protection destroys revenue, how happened it that the revenue overf1owed when protec- l ton was n: it's highest point, and has dlmln: 1 ished as fast as the protection has decreased! Duties may to a certain extent lessen lmPor- 1 tatons. but it is not to the same extent as tney afford protection.
 Mir. Hudson then replied 10 Rheti's asser' tioD that the manufacturers were very In- considerable portion of the inhabitants, be- cause they were only 100000. He contend. ed that the census did not return the full number, and besides, it must be remembered how large portion of the inhabitants con. sisted of women and children, and tho sick, and infirm, while these 100000 are all able bodied. He protested against the position that it was 0 case of the people against the manufacturers. The manufacturers were part of the people, and very large part, six times as large as the number of the merch- ants, and their product was of very great value. This was shown from the fact, that no less than $l2,966.000-a larger amount than all the rico and all the tobacco-of the exports were manufactured goods. This showed that manufactures encouraged and fostered instead of injured commerce.. They also fostesed onr coasting trado.
 BIT. Hudson also contended that agricul { turo had ns direct an interest in protection as manufactures This he showed by the protecting duties on potatoes, oats, wheat, 1 flour, cotton, wool, hemp. &c &zc. Remove 1 the duty of ten cents bushel on potatoes, and how long would tho potatoes of Maine l find market in the Southern cities? How l long would it be before they would be sup planted by the potatoes of Nova Scotin! Mir. Hudson nexs considered the benefits which resulted 10 ,he nation at large in the creation, by manufactures, of a homo mar, ] ket. Where would our corn, rice. -four, &c. ! find market, but for our manufactures T. Foreign ports are shut against them. The State of Massachusetts consumes annually ] 4,OOO,0OO bushels of corn, 100000 bbls. of 1 flour and 20,o00 casks of rice. from other ] States.
 He next proceeded to show, thnt sn the question of protection, the laborera were par ticularly interested in it's favor. The wngcs
 of labor were enhanced by the existence o!
 manufactures. Destroy their business, and
 you make all producers and none consumers. If nll are producers of agricultural products,
 where shall we find a market for them !-
 How shall they obtain D living? Suppose
 the present protection on sugar retnovcd.- 1 Tho result would be that the sugar planta-
 tions would be converted into cotton fields.
 which would so much increase the compe.-
 ton in that article. while the British eXper-
 ments in India nre proceeding, and where, in
 a few years, will cotton itself find market ? Mir. Hudson next proceeded % expose the
 usual error in imagining thnt duties ncccssa-
 rily increased the price. He showed they
 quito as often lowered it, by calling into be- | ipu tn hT nPin ntY against competition such as will drive ;he 1 American manufacturer from the field, and
 the like. This he mstanccd in the case of
 several articles of manufactured iron. He
 protested against tho sectional view which
 had been taken of this question. It was not
 q Massachusetts or New England question.
 The manufactures of Massachusetts ,a!:s ean
 Penbsy ylvania needs protection more than
 New England: All the grain growing States
 are as much interested in manufactures as
 Massachusetts. Indeed. fine were to select
 one State that would be benefited more than
 any other. 1t would bo Virginia. He had no
 doubt. that as soon as the people of that State
 were awakened to their real interests, Vir. glnia would be in favor 1.-the incidental pro- lection recommended in tho Presidents Mes sage.
 Mr. Hudson resumed his speech In the
 House today. and concluded 1t In the same logical and unonswerable manner as he be-
 gan yesterday.
 1 He referred to the assertion tha. hod
 been repeatedly made, that the constitution
 n!ity of a protective tariff had long ago been exploded. Exploded1 Where and when he would ask. He proceeded to show that i, certainly had not been exploded in the days Of Washington. Madison, Jefferson --nor by any of the fathers of the constitution. They ] had. among tho very first measures after the adoption of tho constitution. urged tho sub lect of protection. Did they. who were most ilkeiyfo understand what was intended by the constitution, explode tho cons,i,u.onali,yy of protection! Far from i,. When had i, oeen exploded sincc9 Was no. the very fast tariff net. that of 1893. nn acknowledged net ot protection, and so conceded by Mr. Nhcu! When. tben, bad the doctrine been eXplodedi
 He next proceeded to expose the folly and inconsistency of free trade doctrines. It was he contended. nothing else than the carving out the doctrine of nor. resistance. Other ma. tions hnd the full power 10 pass discrmina. ting acts. 10 the injury of our commerce. and manufactures. but we, 1t Eas con,ended, had no right to retaliate and resist Mr, Rhe,t had always been ready to resist other en. cronchments of foreign governments Why not, then, this1 He next exposed the incorYeciness and fal. sity of the plea. that 1t taxed tho South for Inc benefit of tho North. Ho showed thu, the ourihen of the revenue, from dutiable imports, fell upon the North that from 1921 to lSS9, Massachusetts paid duty averaging Ss per cent upon the amount of her imports. and South Carolina but 2S per cent