New-York daily tribune., 1843-03-02
The Debate on Protection nt the
Tabernacle.

xpce at the Tabernacle on the las, evening "heh
the policy Of Protective Legislation was advocated
by JOSEPH BLUNT, Esq. and opposed oy SAMUEL
J. TLDEs, Etq. and the continuance OF tnat Illness
has postponed to this tire the remarks winch that
djscussion-or rather, al account OF 1t IN ne fle
se;nn-,eemed to require. IndisPosltlon and the
~oo,a,... nj The occasion will constraln US
20 all possible brevity.
On The preceding evening Of the debate we had
advocated Protection to the Home Product Of all
articles which may just az well Ge with as little
leborl be produced at home as elsewhere, as a
clear dictate of sound policy end of the NEST bene
fcept Political Economy, not for our nation esPe-
cially. but for each nation and for all nations Ihe
argument by which we sustained this position will
be found reported in the Merchants Magazine
for March and The american Lo5orer for ditto
We believe that argument gave general satisfaction
10 the friends Of Protection-that 1t convinced or
overthrew its adversaries we will not assume; and
we think they will not assume that they have yet
overlhrown IT, Judging from the scurrty and
falsehood with which it has been assaed In quar-
ters where cowardly personal malevolence is al
lowel to aggravete Political hatred to the cause
and the champions Of Protection, we must believe
that our position and our argument were deemed
formidable by our moro ingenious and manly
,aponsts and easier to be misrepresented than
confuted by the cowboys who follow their camp.
On the succeeding evening of the discussion,
however. Mr. BLUNT (ss We learn from The PIE
beian and other sources gave the opponents OF Pro-
rection another Job to attend to-taking up the sub
ieot entirely frou, the poiat of Reciprocity or the
sustaining of our own People against the exections
of Foreign Governments. For instance: This
Country is producer of Grain in excess, but deh-
cently of Cloths, while with Great Britain the re-
verse is the fact. In state OF Free Trade
therefore, we should export Grain largely to Brit
ain and import Cloths in return. But now Eng
land imposes duty on our bread-stufs-say OF s.
per barrel on Flour-and what is the consequence
Clearly, while British Cloths still be poured
into this County at low prices ever, and asl-
tate and control our markets, Cur Grain can only
go TO England in return under enormous diaadyan-
1ages and the farmers even OF our Atlantic sea-
coast must produce Grain at about one-hcJ the
price which the English farmer obtains for II, IN
order to dispose of their surplu. and make pay
men, for our importations Of Cloth. So long as
we permit this most unequal Of things to con-
1inue. our producers are virtually taxed to support
both Governments, while enjoying the benefits nell
,her of Protection NOR of Free Trade. Such is, as
blindly stated in The Plebeian, the argument OF
Mr.. Blunt for Protective Duties Oh the ground of
Reciprocity aud to US it appears utterly ,mPr'g
nable That il was so regarded by Dir Jefferson,
even while he was ranked as an ultra Free Trader,
sny one may see who will consult his Report OF
1894 on Navigation Laws, Sc g Freedom oI
Trade" (says he-we quote from memory, but
we are certain as TO the sentrnent) as not to be
gto en- in exchange for restrictions; neither uM
it conauce TO their rcmovai. If any statesman
actually presiding over Nations affairs ever Sc
1ieusly prSpounded and acted on contrary doc
urine, we are ignorant of his name.
Here le, US remark that this argument for Pre-
,eeive Duties on the ground Q. Reciprocity, though
WHOLLY in!s pendent and aside from the absolute,
universal ground maintained by U.s. is in no shadow
Of a shode Inconsistent with that, but on the con-
1rary coherent and cumulative. If either OF the
TWO platforms is solid then the justice and neces-
sitv of Protection are established. although tho
other and all ether arguments for Protection prove
entirely fallacious.
Mr. T1LpEN, in replying to Mr.. Blunt was
forced to take ground in opposition to that OF Mr.
Jefferson, and, as we believe, of every statesman
who has been called to act dehntively in view OF
the derres ssing exactions of Foreign Pewers-was
forced actually TO maintan (if The Plebeian truly
reports him) that any tax levied BY a Foreign Ma
tion on oar Products is burthessome only TO her
onn People. and not at aH injurious to US. For
example: If all Europe should combine to lay a
duty of six cents per pound American CottoR,
while receiving that of Egypt and the East Indies
free of duty, i, might be great hardship to the
People of Europe, but no harm atall to oar Cotton
Growers, On the same principle, the British Ma
virasion Acl-to which all clear ighted observers
have traced the Commercial greatness and Naval
ascendancy Of England and ,he rapid decline OF
Holland and ethRr great Commercia! and Naval
Powers OF the Seventeenth Century-which even
Adam Smith, the patron saint OF the Free Traders,
expressly approved though as asgressively aud ex-
cusiyely Restrictive measure as any government
ever adop,ed-eveu this Act, according to Mr.. Ill
den's argument, must have oeen great curse to
England, and none at al to other Nations Such are
,he absurdi.cs in which false position or doctrine
invariably involves him who adopts it.
Mr.. 7. endcavored to sustain his position BY
appeal to the case of Csbn, where duty of some
SO per barrel is imposed on each barrel Of -four.
Now, he inquiries with shew of triumph. who
PAYS ,his-.hs consumer in Cuoa or the producer
in ,he United States I Here is an attempt to