Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1844-03-14


eminent, he had nothing farther to do
with the appropriation bills than to give
them bis signature. But the unbiased
mind will inquire--What were the cir
cumstaIces under which the articles re-
ferred to were purchased ?-were they
necessary to the health and comfort Of
the army ?-could they have been pur-
chased for less money! We cannot
venture to answer these inquiries, as we
have no insight into the peculiar circum-
stances and necessities of the army,
when the alleged abuses existed. But it
does occur to US, that the articles were
purchased under pressing emergencies;
and the culpablity ought to rest upon
the seller, for taking advantage of those
emergencies, and not upon the purchaser,
who perhaps done the best he could
If, on the other hand, no emergency exis-
ted-if the articles purchased were not
really NECESSARY to the health and COM
fort of the army (and what class have a
stronger claim to the Injuries and COM
fort. of the land, that those who defend
the lives and property of our frontier CT
tizens ?)-or if those articles could have
been purchased at lower prices-then,
we have no defence to make in behalf OF
those who practlsed the fraud upon the
government.
Mr.. Stuart then took up the SUBJ
ject of the Tariff. He proceeded to
show that the Tariff was supported by
the Republican party in 1916, 1924, and
1928 and that those tariffs were higher
than the present, &c. After defending
the protective policy, as the means of
defending our manufactures from being
crushed by British capitalists, he under
took to prove that high duties upon i'm
ports produced lou prices. He did not
show hosc thing SO apparently contra
dictory could be brought to pass but
asserted that it was fact, however plau-
sible the theory of the contrary might be
TO prove this, he referred to the price of
certain description of nails. He said
the duty was perhaps fre cents, and yet
they could be purchased in our markets
for about four cents per pound-therefore,
the Tariff had reduced the price of the
nails. In our simplicity we cannot
arrive at such conclusion. The cause
does not seem to us to sustain logical
relation to the effect. If the premise is
true, the conclusion is false; because the
duty on the nails is prohibata7y, and they
could not therefore come in competition
with those made in our own country
But we will suppose, for the purpose OF
illustrating the negative OF this PROPOSE
ton, that no duty had been imposed on
the nails, and the English manufacturer
were admitted into unrestricted compe-
tition with those of our own country
what would be the result? Would the
price of the nails be raised, as necessa-
ry consequence? No: the legitimate eff
feet of competition, is to reduce, and not
to raise prices, in every department of
trade and commerce.-Rut we were fur
Their told that by prohibiting those de-
scriptions of goods which are manufac-
tured in our own country, from being
imported, our citizens will engage more
extensively in the fabrication of those
articles; and home market thus opened
for the CONSUMPTION Of agricultural pro-
ducts; that the price of those products
would be enhanced, and the farmer be
consequently better remunerated for his
labor. At the first view. this reasoning
appears very plausible. But suppose a
large portion Of the t;llers of the soil
should lay aside their implements of hus-
bandry, and engage in manufactures
suppose they should sell their horses,
their cattle, their wagons, their ploushs,
&c. to othcrs-Qor it is hardly suppo-
sibe case that they would give them a.
way for nothing)-to what extent would
the number of agricultural producers be
diminished? In our simplicity we
cannot see that any reduction at all
would take place-But an increase Of
manufactures must necessarily take
place; so that there would soon be SUI
perabundance of fabrics, and the result
would be, the markets would be glutted,
and universal stagnation follow. And
if exported. the profits of the manufactu-
rer would be consumed by foreign i'm
posts. We think this view of the sub
ject is a right one, and perfectly justified
by reference to the history of the past