Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1844-06-21

anu ollen upon tne lntcTilCuldto noIueI, anu ho'
unlre1uontly upon ALL
The Senator from South Carolina argues that
the importer adds the duty to the cost, the mer
chant adds his profit, the country dealer his, and
so on till it falls ultimately on the consumer
If the article be one Of necessity, and you have
no competition at home, | admit such is the
case But il you will sustain your home man
ufacturer what is the result ! This cumuIa-
tive process raises the cost beyond what it can
be made for at home : the article is unsaeable
except by reduction Of price; and thus the
duty falls upon the foreign manufacturer or
importer, or both, in reduction of their profits.
The Senator from New Hampshire tells us
that in England the price of coffee fell upon the
reduction of the duties. Here he is unlortu-
nate again. Coffee is not produced in England,
and no raising of duties could produce domestic
competition to keep down the price. He selects
an article to which the protective policy could
not be extended, either in that country or this.
Mr.. President, the uniform effect of compete
ton is to reduce prices. But you can have no
competition unless you protect your domestic
establishments The American. manufacturer
cannot compete with the immense capital of
England. Foreign goods are thrown into our
market, and sold at great loss, which the for.
eigner can bear and thus the price is reduced,
and the domestic manufacture crushed in its in
fancy. The market being thus yielded to the
foreigner, he makes amends for his loss. Nor
is this all he has often on his hands a surplus,
winch the ordinary maXlms OF trade require
should be sold at any price. After all is sold
which can be sold at a profit the surplus is
forced off for what it will bring. The object of
protecting duties is not to give the manufac-
turcr at home great profits, but to protect him
against this operation. 1t is TO sustain the
weaker party in the competition.
The Senator from South Carolina cannot un
derstand how it is that we desire protective du
ties, while we insist that the effect is to reduce
the price of the fabric. This is the paradox
which he desires explained. SIR, the explana-
ton is easy. The manufacturer if sustained in
his enterprise, is enabled by the greater skill
required by experience and by improvement in
machinery, to manufacture cheaper at the same
profit. That skill and that Improvement will
never be attained, if you suffer him to be sacri-
feed in the outset by the weight Of forcig cap
ltal. Domestic competition will prevent great
profits; and as the manufacture is matured, and
becomes cheaper, the price Of the fabric is re-
duced to the consumer.
There is at this time nearly three hundred
millions OF capital in the United States invested
IN manufacturing operations, and the annual
production is computed at two hundred millions.
Is not this an interest worth protccting'
There are twenty millions of sheep in the
United States, and the amount OF capital invest
ed in rea estate depending for its value upon
the growth Of wool is immense. All this rests
upon the success of that branch Of manufacture.
The opponents of the protective policy have
resorted to many ad capiandum arguments to
render it unpopular. 1t is represented, not only
system q tax pp az 3 The S"u ~ G I an
aristocracv of wealth. disrcoardinr the interes,s
of tho f,rmor f,vorinr tho rich anJ onnross;,,r
The moor. Apncals are made 70 sectional feel.
mos the neonle of the North arc told that
thev are taxed tn fiji the nockets of tho snrar
nlan,er Of Louisiana: the neo,le Of the SoniL
that thew are tayed to sunnort the m,nufacturer
of the North. New Hamnshire is reminded that
sbo il t,vcd unon salt and iron which ,ra M,
fund there and the farmer If the Wcst is
taxed for the benefit of the wool drawer of the
East
Sir. in the crcat variety If interes,s If nursuit
and nrodurtion. in his wido,v oy,nndnd co,,nfry
If onrS win all ,s var,o,v If soil and cIm,,o
and resources. if is imnos:iblo N find ,nv ono
branch of human industry in which ali arc
euuaIlv interested. If these sectional consid.
erations are to prevail. and the peculiar inter.
ests of no one section can be the object of YOUR
legislative care. the whole, with all its preat in
terests, its means of prosperity and happiuess
must be abandoned. 1t is only nv consulting
the interests of each portion. that the prosperity
of the whole can be promoted.
The Senator from New Hampshire asserts
that three millions Of dollars are annually taken
from the rockets of the people, to sustain the
surar planter and sixteen millions as a tax up
on the necessarcs of life, switch the people
might have, if it were not for the protective
system. for precisely sixteen millions less"
This is an unfair mode of STATING the question
The sixteen millions is needed Tor the support
of the government. Suppose the duties taken
off: the revenue must be had, and how will the
nnonle bo oainers if thew oet these necessares
1T an expense less by sixteen millions, and yet
are compelled to pay that sixteen millions into
the Treasury in the most odlous form OF taxa
ton ever adopted-a direct tax 4! Sir, the true
mode of stating the question is this: II your
revenue is kept within the limits OF your neces-
Sites is the mode of levying it by duties, grad
uated with a regard to the productive industry
of the country, more burdensome to the people
than direct tax or iu,posts laid without refer.
ence to that object!