The Ohio Democrat. [volume] (Canal Dover, Ohio) 1840-1900, 1842-08-11
C5ntinued from 4th page,

laws OI UIedl pIldl0' 1HlSarRum6nt IL nel~
Iher sustained by sound policy nor would lls
operation produce the Oslensbe design. Every
candid mind must acknowledge that the tar
if upon bread stuGS by which Great Britain
protects" her landed capitalists, stAlves hsr
poor aud discoursges the importation Of A.
merican produce, it must be admitted we say,
that the consequent injury TO this country falls
directly upon the people Of Ohio and other
grain grOUing states. Now, in what manner
would a relalIatory tariff operate upon the
grain-growing people Of our sta,el Its operas
lion is plain aud it's consequences Of easy IL
lusiration: To punish Great Britain and "pro-
.ecl" Ohio industry, it is proposed 10 make
the English manufacturers (through the me-
dium of tariff sell their goods to the peo-
pie OF Ohio at higher rate than they wOud
otherwise have been asked, and a! the same
time enable The New England manufacturer to
raise his prices in q corresponding degree!
Thus 1t will be seen that instead Of a retaia-
tory tariff bene6.ting the people whose sales
have been injured by corn-laws, they are
made to pay higher price for the articles Of
their consumption, and this, foIsooth is call
ed protecting their industry and measure of
sef-defenCe! To illustrate the inutility of
Ohio farmer with 500 bushels Of wheat star:
for the sea-board, embark for a foreign port,
each bushel Of his grain worth $lOO before
entry, pay 10 a foreign custom>hOuse 20 per
cent. tariff, exchange his grain for six hundred
dollars worth of British manufactures, re-
embark for the United States with his cargo,
would he be injured or benefited by tariff
imposed upon the commodity for which he had
bartered his grain and in which the profits Of
a years labor were invested?
But the advocates OF protective tariff, in
order 10 induce The agriCuturist to agree 10 the
passage Of, tariff, by which he will be requir.
ei TO pay heavy per ceDiage 10 the support
of the manufacturer, alledge that it will oper-
ate bene6cialIy to the farmer because the mar
kst for produce will be improved by the ia,
crease of manufactures The argument, when
reduced to plain proposition, is simply this;
the manufacturer offers 10 buy more OF the
farmers produce provided the farmer will pur-
chase his commodities at an advanced price;
or, in other words, the farmer is 10 give the
manufacturer 5O per cent. more for his cloths
than. they ave worth, 10 order that the manulac.
iurer may Ouy the farmers wheat with the
tlrmer's money! If such is not The operation
Of the tariff or if instead of operating wholly
in favor Of the manufacturer, it effects both
with 40 equal hand, then it may we'll be asked
how is either benefited neither having any
thing added 10 bis proftr? But the gain is IN
fact exclusively TO the manufacturer, and the
farmer by giving fiji, per cent. advance 10 the
manufacturer, has reduced the profits of his
grain in The same amount.
10 connection with the argument last con-
sldered, it is frequently asserted that tariff
will create a demand for labor If such were
the fact, it would constitute a more effecrive
argument in favor Of The measure than any
which can be urged with truth. The design Of
protective duties, is avowedIy 10 supersede The
importation of foreign productions by means
Of establishing manufactures in the United
States. Let il be supposed then for moment,
that foreign goods 10 the value of $43 000,.
900 have been yearly imported 10 the United
States, and that the tariff law shall be such as
10 cause new American manufactures 10 spring
mo existence amply capable producing The
same value in goods. Now candor, will for
bld intelligent statesmen from denying (and
equally those politicians who have asserted
that the United States never possessed more
than a mere pitance Of gold and silver curren~
cyl these individuals, we say cannot deny
that our foreign mportations have been chiefly
paid for in American produce. If this be the
case, and it ought not to be doubted, let US
ascertain how the change will effect the de-
mand for American labor. By reference to The
census tables Of 1910, it will be discovered
that the aggregate sum Of agricultural products
Of Ohio, during lha. year, were lat the aver
age price worth nearly $43, 100000 being
JUS, equal 10 the amount of foreign goods
which (for the sake of convenience only, we
have supposedly has been annually imported
from abroad. ln the production Of these for~
,y-three millions of Ohio Agriculture, the la
Dor Of 292 $40 persons was devoted. Now
we are next TO ascertain wheher laher discon.
tinu ng the purchase Of foreign commodities
and thus destroying the foreign market for our
Ohio produce The establishments of manu-
factories at home would give emp oyment 10
the 272579 agrculuralists whose produce
had been formerly exchanged 10 advantage for
foreign goods, or if not whether the new man
ufactoTies will create market for their grain.
Dy again turning 10 the census tables for the
same year, it will be seen that in Massachu-
seits (our greatest manufacturing State,) The
various articles Of woolen, cotton, hardware,
mixed, glass, paper, leather, precious metals,
hats, caps, bonneis, and machinery manufac-
tured iu l64O, we're valued at S43, GAG, ,46S,
and were produced by 49, S23 persons with the