Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1844-04-04

tina, The population Of New Hampshire wa. 800.
600; and that the consumption OF iron was TWEEN.
ty-tNc pounds to each individual; that the duty
was three cents pound and that therefore The
tax was .eventy-hve cents upon each individual
The gentleman stated the facts, bu, they did no,
support the conclusion. He assumed tina, the
duty was added TO the price Ono article of iron
was cut nails-,he duty was three cents pound,
and the gentleman assumed iha, each man was
taxed three cents on each pound Of nails that he
used Now the fact was, that where he mir. P.)
lived, among the mountains, the price Of cut nails
was three and hall cents pound. or course,
according to the gentleman's supposon, If the
duty were taken of, the price would be a half
cent. The price had formerly been cigh, or ten
cents, and had fallen since The duties were imposed
The Senator was equally unfortunate in citing
the instance of leather which was not imported,
and the duty on which was merely nominal and
might rs well le out of the tariff as in it. How.
then, could this duty affect the price ofthe article?
Blu, the article Of salt had been selected for the
purpose Of showing the burden of the tariff The
whole duty yielded five hundred thousand dollars
year, or two and half cents from each person
in the United States He, himself on his farm of
three hundred acres, with cattle and sheep, used
one bushel of Turks Island year and three Of
Western salt Surprising that this duty was ad
dcd 10 the price, the tax him for his cattle and
his family would be thirytwo cents year. The
whole Of this clamor about the salt duty was ad
eaptandnm.
| The duty did not always fall on the consumer
as he went on to show in reply to the argument
Of the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr Nc DUFF
fe) The uniform experience of the country had
shown US that, by creating domestic competition
in the production OF an article the price was re-
duccd Not one article could be named rs an cy.
ception BY protective duties we might for a
time enhance the price. The difficulty with our
manufacturers was, that they could not compete
with the foreign capitalist in sinking the market
with view TO get possession Of it. The English
manufacturer could afford to sacrifice hundred
thousand dollars in competition by which he
was to secure market But the result Of protec.
ton was, that the skill was acquired at home in
the business, and thus the manufacturer would be
able soon 10 supply the market at cheaper rate
BY the improvements in machinery, yard of
cotton was now made OF much less cost than il
was few years ago
! But why should not the Senator consent to en-.
courage our manufactures as well as our com
mercc? Why should commerce be the cxcu.
sve favori,e, when it must rely on the manufac-
turing interests. in great measure, ultimately for
its support? The production of manufactured ar.
ticles was equal to two hundred and forty millions
a year, and there were twenty millions of sheep
in the United States, the value of which depended
on the prosperity of manufactures. Was all this
vast amount of capital TO be abandoned and de.
stroyed?
! The senetor had alluded 10 the interests ofthc
State of New Hampshire in connection with this
subject but his own political friends in that State
were cnoverts TO this policy, but complained of the
Tariff because it did not afford sufficient protec.
ton. When the Senator came to bis State, he
found that wool was not sufficiently projected
Protection was very wise and polite there but not
in the more genial climate of the South. He pro-
tested against this blowing hot, and cold, and &C.
comodaling views on the subject to any sectional
views. He was somewhat surprised that the Sen
ator should state that the duty on wool was only
per cent
Mr.. WOODBURY. meant, he said, only the
coarse wool. But he had never advocated duty
on any kind of wool except the revenue standard.
Mr.. PHELPS said the revenue standard, was
such standard, in his opinion, as would protect
all the interests of the country II was not true
that the interests of the wool.growers were pro-
tected for the benefit of the manufacturers The
protection ofwool was precisely equal to that on
the woollcn fabrics The value Of the raw mate.
rial was always considered equal to half of the
/ fabric. The grower Of the wool receives forty
per cent. duty, and the manufacturer had double
that The protection in either case was precisely
equal and this was perfectly understood by those
engaged in wool growing in the State OF Yer
mont The legislature of Vermont had sent a
resolution here protesting agains; the repeal of the
act OF 1912, and thereby admitted that its duc.
were equal The men who passed that resolution
were interested in tina, subject and understood it
and they approved of the present system.
Wool from Spain, Germany the Levant thu
whole world. would come in competition and ru,
nous competition, with domestic wool is this sys
TEN of protection was abandoned. The interes
of the constituents of the Senator from New
Hampshire, and Of his own State, (Yem?nt
+ would utterly be destroyed by such course.
What would they do for living If they were
obliged 10 abandon wool-growing They could
not make bread stufs. They would have bu! one
resource lef--to emegrae to the far West, as ma
ny had done already, and loses themselves in ,h'
vast space Of that region to abandon a country
r which had contributed so much 10 the establish
ment OF this Government, and which abounded Sc
much in 'aent and enterprises, and leave il Z
desert. We should then realize the picture pre-
scented by the Senator from South Carolina. who
said that when the system of Protection was de
siroyed, atravelcr visiting New England woulc
asl; what demon of destruction had visited nnl