New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-06-20

obsbi,,n,, make des in wealth md prosperity unequed in
nG 20 coTnry 30 1ch in tina; the ,r"fsi 'eH,on
can only retad de-poii,m could net deiiGy To-
nocy united with and Just aw- on uthe 'u'IscS'
n, We presume our readers like once IN z
while to read something on the wrong side oil the
urea. questions we discuss, and so when We fho
i go94. sk;lful Loco. Foco article Pungen' and
mo-, drawled out, we often give It place ! he
letter We copy above is Of this cass-be'teF than
sny Free Trade Speech made in Congress the
I.st Session. /, ought to be answered. and we
n, =. waited day or tno 10 let our new-fiedgec
Tariff men, the friends OF Polk and Incidental
Protection take hold Of 1t. For, assuFedly,
The argument takes just IS rank hold OF Incl
dental as OF any other Protection II It be
s,und. any sort Of Protection is a rinous mis-
take, and we ought to begin, as Polk proposed
l.y making Wool duty free, lcvyng tax on l ca
CoGiee, &c and so, reducing or abol!shlng our du-
ties on al! articles produced in this Country and
imposing or increasing them on articles now W.
,naly free. b:ing our Tariff to strictly Revenue
Standard. Il we did not abolish it altogether. we
therefore had night to expect that the ne,o Pro-
;ec,ionis,s-,he Polk Incidentals idII
anon this ultra Free Trade argument with all the
fury of newborn zeal. But no they arc Whist
AS mice. They have MT a word Of defence Tor
their own sort of Protection nor any other!-
Tbc;r Tar;fism is never more than skin-deep-
Won cannot coax them TO say 'chy there should
he Protection, or why Free Trade is wfong-oh
The contrary, they never miss chance 10 assam
ar nreudcc the cause Of Protection, though mey
sg,, thew arc in favor OF it! How many s"rh
friends would it take TO throttle II
No, is idle waiting for them to defend Pro-
lection. we must take the iaboflng oar AGAIN
Here is the Free Trade argument for Farmers
o-osented-let us consider it. The essential as
;u,nn;ion is that Farmers receive too little for
their produce at present--tha' IS barrel ol Flour
or Pork does not buy 80 much Cloth, or Leather,
or Gard Yare, IS it should do and has done We'll
il is the fact tha. Provisions arc at tins momon'
low in our great Citics--much too low. But tohy
are they too low What is the reason that Flour
rangcs below ST 80 per barrel The Free Trader
answers, "The Tariff dmnshes the demand for
i, in other Countries IRE consume Al all at hone.
md hence lis raiue is reduced" Here are two
assertions and an intcrence--thc assertions both
oalpably untrue, and the inference equally ial-
acouis. II IS not true that the Tariff dilnlnlshes
The Foreign demand for our products to an extent
Il al commensurate with its increase Of the hom'
demand for the same. Look at this point: Let
rs estimate that we were in lc4l purchasing o.
Foreiun Nations their Manufactures to the extent
If Fifty Millions per annum, and that by the / u
riff or 1912 we have reduced that amount 10
Twenty-Five Millions worth per annum, at tho
same time increasing our Home Products IN still
greater proportion. This change Is produced III
TWO ways-eltelr by bringing Foreign woTkineh
over here 10 produce the fabrics We need. or by d.
ver,ing part of the labor OF our own people from
Agriculture TO Manufactures. In the first place,
,ye certainly cannot have diminished the demand
for our Provisions but must have increased 1t
rhc manufacturers and those dependent on them
do not eat less here than they did III England
quite the contrary-and they eat great deal
faore of such articles as We produce-Wheat, We
49,
iourths OF the farm-producc which manufactures
consume here they could not buy of us at all, i
they made the cloth and wares we consume III
E,urope instead of in this country And II i
only those portions oil his produce which nc uni
ormlv sells at the least profit which the farmer call
sell to the Foreign manufacturer, or to Foreign
nations al all. His Wheat and Pork he may sell
to England; but his Vegetables Fruits, coarse
Grains, Wood &c. &c. he must have markc'
ior near home, or they arc not worth marketing
At all.
But it is not true of our Farmers Produce that
we consume it all at home" Ii this were the
r,c,-,bat is, if we had an adequate Home Mar
lct for all VIC pyaduce-thc average pncc would
inevitably be higher. But our Home Market Is
not capacious enough for the supply, and that Is
the reason Produce is so low. Our Foreign
Markets are as ample us evcI-we are shipping
4, LARGER amount of Provisions than for many
years before. The demand is fair; the real dii-
fcultv is that, in the absence OF nearly ade-
ouate Home Market, our Produce must sink toa
low price in order to satisfy the heavy cost of en-
DOrtdtiOn ana Ililu pIoilt1o1| MAJ nv N"t0UA'
Let us illustrate this little, and see what an
absolute Bottoms Dream is this Free Traders
conclusion from the premise that we consume
our produce all at home, " hence It's price is re
duced." Take the case of any township, any
County, any State, in which, owing to The diver
sion Of Industry 10 Manufacturing, or other pnr
poses, the production Of Grain and Meat fails
short of the consumption, and there you will find
me price of those articles higher (will you not? p
than II, n County where they arc produced in
large supera5andance and exported. Can this be
doubted Compare the prices of Farm produce
N Massachusetts with the value OF the same az
,ic!es in Illinois and mark he great disparity
Compare the prices OF Grain &c. in England
with those of Poland. These are extreme cases.
bu, they exhibit the principle. The reason why
Gram, &c. were so high in 1867, was not