New-York daily tribune., 1844-09-03

mendcd as Free Trade.
But there is another and very different thing
winch you say your Southern friend understood
hy Pfotcction-namely, "a Tariff OF Duties I'M
posed not to raise Revenue FOR the Treasury,
hut purely and simply to protect certain iavof-
tic and particular interests, TO the prejudice oi
others
Hon, Sas. | apprehend you have here put IA
4 good many words that your Southern Trend
never used, with a view not 50 much TO explain
MS position as to garnish and fortify your own.
The purely and simply 'favoritc and particu-
iar,' and TO the prejudice Of Others | will DC
bound were not in his observation fox Southern
Free Trade men do not feel obliged to talk in this
way, and they never do it, any more than they
call Free Trade Protective Tariff. They say
what you arc driving at here in half the words
sou take, and am confident your Southern
riend did SO. Recollect, and say II he did not
You mean To say here that when higher DUTY
IS laid on any imported article than that which
would afford the most Revenue, with the view OF
ostering and encouraging the production Of a
rival at home, then this is favoring certain par
tcular interests, to the prejudice Of others. But
appeal from your insinuaton 10 facts of the
widest notoricty. 1t is by just such duties that
sc have cherished into vast and heallhiul &C
tv;y in our land the production of Cotton, OF
Wool, of Hemp, of Iron, of Cotton fabrics,
Wooden do. Hardware, Nails, Glass, Pins, sc.
&c. In the same way we are now beginning 70
srgw and labricate our ogn Silks, Cutlery, and
Giapy other articles. Now ii Is a very narrow,
pgojudced, erroneous view OF this matter to say
,hat we levy duties on any one Of these articles
merely or mainly TO benefit the producers OF that
srt!cle-stll less to benefit them at the expense
Of others. Ii is THE COUNTRY which is to be
ocneftcd-the coMMos VEAL which is to be pro-
mo ed-yes, and which is promoted by The INTRO
duction of a new or the development and ma
turity of feeble branch Of Industry. Twenty
i've years ago, We bought two-thirds Of all the
manufactured goods VIC consumed: at present
we do pot buy more than one-third. Now we do
not believe manufacturers make more now than
lhcy did thirty years ago, nor is this matter of
public concern. The real questions arc Is it
better for us TO have these articles made at home
or made abroad Can we pay our own work
men custer for them than those OF other Nations p
We Protectionsts whose Protection docs not mean
The same as Free Trade, insist that it is desirable,
as a general thing, to let American workmcn do
American work-that we the People can better
pay iron makers, furnacc.men, colliers, spinners,
wcavers, &c. in our own Country than in Foreign
Countre:-ihat VIC the American Nation can do
better by making mainly our own Iron, Wares,
Cloths, Clothes, SC. than by buying these from
Europe and exporting Grain, Pork, Beef, Butter,
&c. TO pay for them. Such being our convic-
ton we struggle to have the Tariff So adjusted
IS to favor the policy Of producing our own
Cloths and Wares ut home. But VIC have no
drought in this of benciiiing any one class, or
increasing the profits Of any particular business.
We know tina. such cannot be the result, 50 long
as every business is open 10 enterprise and com.
,ctitivn-that the profits OF any business will be
governed by the average rate of profits through
cut the Country. Your insinuatlon, therefore,
that Protection seeks to favor particular interests
and prejudice others is groundless and unjust.
You say that you would discriminate in ar
rauging Revenue Tariff; but hO'c Onc ar
.cIc, you say would not bear ten per cent another
would bear iil.y. You would put on each such
tuty us il would bear without destroying Reve
uue. | pray the Laboting Men of this Country
70 read and closely scan your language on this
pout. TO my mind it is clear as daylight that
such Tariff as you propose is utterly hostile 10
aud destructive of Protection. For do but con-
sder Fars We mainly buy abroad, and would
50 buy them though the duty were fifty per cent.
but IIats VIC generally make at home; and any
duty above thirty per cent. must stop their i'm
poltaton and 50 cut off the Revenue from them.
Hides We import in large numbers, as We use
more Leather than we have Hides for but Shoes
we mainly make for ourselves, and any duty like
fifty per cent. would prevent our getting Revenue
from them. | ask every discerning man TO Judge
whether your position, as illustrated by yourself
does no impcratively require discrimination against
American Industry-against the labor of our own
orgcs, foundrics and workshops. This ground
mas been distinctly taken and argued out in The
Globe yet did not expect it would be taken
by Statesman SO cautious and willy as yourself
Here it is, however, plain as you speak on any
question. The present duties on Hats, Boots,
Shoes Ready made Clothing, Screws Pins, Cast
ings, &c. are so high amos, entirely to shut out
the Foreign articles, and give the supply of
American wants in these respects 10 American
workers. The articles arc not higher than they
were under a Revenue Taritl;-many OF them arc
Iowcr-but tens OF thousands Of our countrymen
are now steadily employed in making them who
in lS42 were out of work, or at hall. work. think
tic present arrangement is right, wise and
beneiicent. But your principle says Moths IS
all wrong VIC must reduce the duties on all these
articles SO that they viii produce Rerenue-that
is, allow of capricious inundahons ofour markets
by Foreign Hats, Shoes, Clothes, &c. and thus
keep our artisans in perpetual oscillation between
Work and No Work. American Working Men
,,,lI ,,n,, ,binl nc this