New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-12-04
mend as principal one in these establishments

mend as a principal one in these establishments
it is the culture anG manufacture of Silk IN all It's
departments. 1t is kind of labor at which all
could work the old and young, and even the emp
nled and the blind The Hampstead Plains could
be made to answer very well for the cultivation
of the Mulberry, and any quantity OF land for The
purpose could be obtained at low price.
| Trutl, u.s. The journal OF Commerce.
g In our judgement says the Journal, IN re-
Dv to our article Of Wednesday, no cause
can ultimately be put down or held up by lies. .
We trust not but VIC fear the Journal lnagines
that the cause it has espouscd and lives by may
be temporarily subserved by deccltlul handling
of the truth. In the very article before US, 1t
assumes to set forth the doctrines OF the Protec-
tionists, putting its own words IN their mouths
instead OF allowing them to speak for themselves,
and making them advance these propositions
.Tha in the United States Manufacturing Is necessary
10 keep up the wages CT Labor and that al tue same timr
wae are already high that l. ator cannot be employed III
Malufctur!n. unless Manufacturing highly pfotct,d
That Great Britain vii not lake our Produce.
Tha, Great Britain protects her Manufactures.
Here arc three propositions taken almost at
random from dozen equally unfair which the
Journal puts INTO the mouth Of Protection. We
do not base the necessity Of Protection on the fact
that wages are high here If Labor were as cheap
here as in Italy, it would be impossible to build
up and sustain the manufacture of light and cost
~ fabrics with our ports open at nominal duties
to rival fabrics Of Foreign Nations We IN
sist that Iron Hardware, Woolens &c. viii be
made cheaper and cheaper by Protecting the
Home Production, just as Nails, Plain Cottons:
Prints, &c. sc. have already been, without re-
ducing the wages Of the laborcr.-We do not COM
plain that Great Britain "wlll not take our Fro
duce she has perfect right to take 1t or let 1t
alone-but we state the fact that she virtually
excludes the bulk Of our Agricultural Products
especially those Of our Free Labor, as reason
why we should provide for them home MalAe'
bv encouraging here the fabrication of those artl-
Giles which our farmers need IN exchange Tor their
srrD]uses. nThat Great Britain protects her
manufactures is not one OF our points either,
THOUGH she does so undoubtedly. She does not
impose very heavy duties on those articles which
she can make cheapest; yet compare her duties
on Silks, Gloves, Laccs, Millinery, &c with ours,
and hers will be found much the heavier. But It
is her duties on our Agricultural staples, and not
on Manufactures, which seriously affect US.
1t is not the defective logic but the decelttully
handled facts Of the Journal that VIC protest
against 1t is light matter that that paper may
iudqe our positions sound or msound, but 1t
OUGHT to deal with facts honestly, which 1t does
not. Thus in its last paper 1t asserts that our
Eyports to Great Britain and her Dependencies Gall
over the world were equal in 1912 to our Exports
to all other Countries This looks imposing, but
is essentially defective. A great portion oil our EA-
ports to Great Britain do not enter at all INTO tie
consumption Of her people. Thus, she takes OF
us an immense amount Of Cotton, which she
merely spins into Yarn or at most converts INTO
Cloth, and sends out into all the markets CT the
world to compete with our own corresponding
fabrics. We do not thank her for this-wc should
be better off if she took but half as much OF our
great staple, and allowed US to supply Northern
Europe with Yarn and Spanish America and
Asia with Cloth. Yet the Journal makes no dis
elimination between this mere transformation Of
our products and their actual consumption.
And now word as to our original arraign-
mcnt of the Journal. That paper says:
" What before stated in qualified way repeat
without qualification, VIZ that excluding tobacco from the
account the average duties levied upon products import!
ed Great Britain only per cent this the
proposition which the Tribune folks positively deny, and
case should Prove true insist upon being considered
deliberate intentional unequyoca liars, they have hight
choose their gnation. IT. the other han1hey
battling not against any assertion OF ours but against
of of their creating, we hope they will de-
nolish him utterly and leave for creations of more
valuable and substantial kind
We lid, ex amne,l detail the various articles of AM
ercan produce exported TO Great BRAIN ard Ireland IN The
bacco, the average duty IS than eleven cent
The cheat in this statement, 1t seems, is con-
cea'cd under the words F." umPOrted into Great
Britain This is the self.cjccted black liquid
under Which the cuttle.fsh escapes pursuit. The
Journal purports to speak of the average rates of
duties imposed on our products by Great Britain,
and to instigatc a comparison between these and
our mposts on British productions. Very well,
say we; 'let us make the comparison, and see
how it results There is Tobacco-900 per cent.
to begin with "Stop." says the Journal, " we
bar Tobacco; that must not be counted" why
so 2 we ask, No answer No matter we
proceed: Spirits from Grain 1000 per cent.
Timber Slaves, &c. 100 per cent Butter $50
per cent. Cider $50 per cent. Moasses 800 per
cent Hold there" says the Journal !;
eve don't allow these articles to count in our cs.
innate" But 'chynot 80, the British duty
on these is so high as to exclude them altogether
and We cautiously confined our statement to
our products imported into Great Britain Our
statement was sufficiently guarded" (the precise
words nj tho Journal Sniff cientlv rnarded !,