Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1844-10-17

market for more 6reGdstufs than all Europe nae
furnishes Us. In short, sir, we have been too
long subject to the policy Of British merchants 1t
| is time we should become little more y4naeicGn-
ized and instead of feeding paupers and laborers in
England, feed our own, or else, in short time, By
continuing our present policy, zoe shall be paupes
01uSeives.
1t is therefore my opinion that careful and iu-
dicious tariff is much wanted to pay our National
debt, and to afford us the means of that defence
within ourselves on scHich the safety of oar c0un.
try depends, and last though not least give pro-
per distribution Of our labor, which must prove
beneficial to the happiness, independence and
wealth Of the community.
l am very respectfully your ob't servt
ANDREW JACKSON, s
Hon. Senator will yon compare this with the
spirit and drift of your speech? Will you consider
for ,ctGt Gen. jackson, in the vgor his intellect
and his fame, wished protection to manufactures p
Was it for revenue? Was it to favor particular
interest at the expense of all others o no, sir
He wished to protect and build up manufactures
for the benefit Of .Agrieult,ue-to promote the
welfare of the sohoie people. He thought a pro-
per distribution 0fOtv LGbO7' matter of great ma
ional concern. He never dreamed this was in
his better days, before the Virginia Abstractionsts
got possession OF him) that such policy could be
unconstitutional, or injurious to any portion Of our
country. You ares subtler man than Gen. jackson,
more learned, and probably ADLER; and it saddens
me to think how such powers as yours have been
devoted to ends so narrow and transtory--to the
service of mere Party when you are capable of do
ing so much for the country. fear You have said
1926 to Mr.. Van Buren-so worthy to live in the Ma
tons memory as that letter of Gen. jackson.
But even according to your way of reckoning, it
seems that the present Tariff affords the farmer di-
rect and efficient protection on three staples--ool
hemp, and sugar-(the latter by no meaus south
ern product only) You argue that hemp cannot
be much longer protected, because We are begin
ming to raise it so cheap that we can export it at
profit. Yet we shall doubtless continue to import
some descriptions of Hemp long after we have been
enabled to export other kinds largely and steadily.
think the fact that we are beginning to produce
cheap to export is gratifying evidence Of the
tendency and general effect of Protection in reduc-
ing prices without rendering production unprofta-
| BILE. -e i
| So of Sugar. You say the duty is high, but, it
yields large Revenue, you do not complain. Sup.
pose it were otherwise-that our southern plant
ers should come to produce sugar so cheaply and
abundantly that none could be imported. Now,
says your doctrine, we must knock down the duty.
But say, let US consider: Our planters have inn
proved their lands their processes, their machine
ry. until they afford sugar cheaper than formerly
and because they do, we take ofthe duty and let in
sharp competition among them. This is poor
encouragement l would rather reduce the duty
sugar at fair price, and keep it on when its ten
dency was plainly to reduction Of price by i'm
provement in the home production. 5r f
But Wool is to be considered. You say you
would tax Wool higher than articles not produced
here, but not SO high as to prohibit its importation
If you mean to use prohibit in the absolute
sense of forbiddings agree with you. But il you
mean that the duties on wool should be laid with
view mainly to deriving revenue therefrom, dis
sent. think it OF far greater consequence THAI we
should grow the great bulk OF our own wool than
Of revenue on the importation Of this article. II
seems to me that you consider the raising of reye.
nue. the main purpose Of Government, 10 which ev-
cry thing else must conform and adapt itself
Let NE point out one grave error in which You
seem to me involved, and which discolors and
clouds all you afterward say on Manufactures, You
say that if the duty on wool were prohibitory,
"It would give to the farmers who raised woola
perfect monopoly of the market. They could
command their own price, according to the demand
for wool, the foreign article being excluded"
Now if only ore man owned sheep, and all beside
were forbidden to grow wool cannot conceive such
result OF prohibitory duties as you her assert
can see how prohibition offoreign wool might tenn
pOrGrily raise the price above fair standard in
the actual state of things. But, were there no 9TH
err corrective, the Of substitutes for wool would
speedily correct this. Suppose the woolclip ofthis
year is sixty millions of pounds, the amount requi-
red for our consumption eighty millions Of pounds,
and importation prohibited Here is the best i'm
aginable chance for corner But the moment
Wool and Woolens rise above the standards, there
is inducement and tendency TO buy less of Woolens
and more other stuffs-more Furs, Cotton, Linnens,
Silks, &c.--aad the attempt to monopoly will very
probably result in loss to its contrivers, But, be-
yond this, nearly every sheep and lamb is kept over
wool bearing so good price--and next year we
shall probably have ninety millions Of pounds in
stead sixtya large surplus must be sold, and what
is not needed must in good part be exported. Thus
the consequence OF high prices one year would
probably be low prices for two or three succeed
ing years--the duties still remain prohibitory.-
There is no possibility, while the range ofemploy-
ment and investment are open to all, that one
branch of industry should realize higher profits
than another merely because its product is covered
by higher duty. You see this Mr.. Wright, in the
case OF Wheat, Cheese, &c.--why can you not see
that the same law exists here, graduating prices
and profits to the cost Of production and not to the
amount of protection ? This law takes effect on
manufactures more readily that on raw staples, be-
cause the capacity of producing them is particular
ly without limit, and the increase of production
may be instant, whereas the products of wool or
even grain cannot be increased at months notice.
But the law, though more tardy in its operation, ex
lists here, and will make itself felt and respected.
think need spend no more time on your hor-
rors Of monopoly and prohibition. The farmers Of
this country have long enjoyed monopoly Of sup
plying all the rest of with our common fruits,
vegetables, wood, &C., but do not think they have
ever taken, ever can take much advantage Of it.
think get as many peaches for sixpence this
year as ever did. considering the size. Is there
any reason wool should not be governed by the
same law s4s
You seem 10 labor under constant and painful
u Al n -.Aa- L. -