The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-10-11

|
plying the general government with rerenue, and
arranged as to protect, as far they may be pro-
tected, all the great interests of the countryside
main and principal object Of which should be reD'
enue for the public treasury Even his Southern
| friend would tell him that he found no fault with
that-but what he understood by protective tariff
would be tariff OF duties imposed not 10 raise rev
enue for the treasury, but purely and simply TO pro-
tect certain favorte and particular interests TO the
prejudice of other. Neither was Mr.. w. in favor
of such tariff. Here then was an explanation of
what Mr.. w. meant by protective tariff, and oi
what his Southern friend meant by free trade
Where then was the difference between us'
| Mr.. w. stated what his rule would be IN arrang-
ing a revenue tariff He would by no means lay
the same rate of duty every article of importa-
ton. The thing was mpracticable in itself: be-
cause article would not bear ten per cent, until
you prohibited it, and destroyed revenue. Anoth-
er would bear 80 per cent, and yet the trade hold
up, from the nature of the article. 1t was absurd,
in revenue sense, to say "puta uniform duty on
both" Because do that and you either fail to get
the revenue you want, or you prohibit the impor-
tation altogether. Mr.. w. would then dscrlmi-
nate according to the nature of the article. That
would be one ground of discrimination.
| Another ground. Every community consumed
of foreign imported articles, portion which are
really necessaries offe, or have become so among
all classes. Another portion were emphatcally
| luxuries They were purchased and consumed to
crafty aste the pride of dress, the pride of living
the style of our houses, eguipages, &c. Would he
tax these two classes alike to raise revenue?-
Would he tax the necessares of life which every
man, woman and child must consume, and the
luxuries ofthe rich equally' No. He would tax
the neceSsaries as lightly as he could and secure
the necessary revenue; and he would tax the luru-
ries as heartily as they could be without destroying
the revenue, without cutting up the trade. This
was another ground of discrimination But there
was another, and third ground. There were GER
tain interests in this country, which came in COM
petition with similar interests in forei gn countries
and Mr.. w. would discriminate in reference to
them. When an importation came in competitor
with domestic article, he would Iaise tax on
foreign articles, far required to favor
the domestic. But he would not 90 SO far as to
revenue for the treasury.
To see how far we might go-take first the agri-
cultural interest of this section of the country
Where were the articles you could benefit by a
tariff What were our principle staple arcles'-
Bread stuffs were one. Could you benefit the far
mers and the grower of bread stufs by putting a
duty on foreign bread stuffs' No. Why not'
Because We do not import bread StufS; but export
them We looked for a market not merely to our
own country but to the whole world, and pe sent
oufow to oil quarters ofMe Globe. What then
made the price ofour flour, and where was il made
In tht great markets of our country-in New York,
Boston and Philadelphia principally What gov
erned the price there' Was il the call of our own
people on those towns for flour? Mo- but the en-
tire demand for flour in New York, governed the
price there--as well the demand Tor erpOytation as
for consumption. What good then did our duty on
foreign flour and wheat do, when foreign flour and
wheat did not come there' None whatever. The
duty neither Brought money into the treasury nor
the pockets of the farmer. This was no fault of
the law, but resulted from the impossibility of pro-
tecting an article so as to raise the price, while we
regularly exported it. So with our beef. We did
not import beeffor consumption. We raised more
than our own people would buy, and tce looked to
other countries. for a market ofour surplus Then
the duty under the present tariff goo per cent
the present price beef did our farmers no good.
II ali IL
present tariff imposed duty of nine cents pound
on cheese. Where was the farmer of this or any
other county the state, who could say that this
has had even lille effect on his cheese this year,
[Laughter.] Aye, said Mr.. W., fear it will
prove to be true that the farmer will be glad even
to get halt the duty for the whole price of his
cheese. So the duty on these articles was of no
practicable utility-not because the fault was in
Congress or the law, but because we exported
these articles, and they therefore could MT be pro-
tected. Ifthen these articles were out of the reach
Of protection, SO faI the agricultural interest was
beyond the reach of protection. Where did the
farmer come within it, On his wool. We never
exported wool. We did not now. We did not
grow as much as we consumed. Every year we
imported foreign wool. Was il not easy to see
how our duty protected our farmers' For when
the Spaniard or the Belgian brought his wool here,
he must first pay our duty and then meet our far
mers on equal terms. The duty then was pro-
lection, and the article was subject to protection.
1t would be reached by Congress in regulating this
tariff law He would, then, raise the duty high on
,oool, in proportion to articles thatrequred pro-
lection. He would do this for the protection of
one great interest But would he 60 so high that
wool could not be imported Prohibit importa-
ton and thus defeat revenue from wool' 1.-The did
what would be the consequence 1t would give
to the farmer who raised wool, perfect monopoly
of the market. They could command their own
piice according to the demand for wool, the for
eign article being excluded; and epey citizen tcho
did not raise toool, and must wear ,ooolen cloths,
must pay more. And where was his remunera-
l.