The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-04-11

cents per pound, and this duty, of course, was
az per cent. but now, when the effect of this
ineffective duty has been 10 reduce the price of
nails from twelve 10 three cents per pound the
duty is increased 10 100 per cent. this is equal
ly true of spikes, rods, wood screws, &c
Again eight cents yard duty was imposed on
coarse coItons when imported at 20 cents, being
duty Of DO per cent but now, when the price
has come down to five cents per yard, the duty
goes up TO 100 per cent
Sir, | could go on and enumerate more than
twenty such instances where the duties though
moderate when imposed, now actually exceed
the price of the article; YET we are told that in
all cases the duty is added TO the price, and paid
by the consumer! That is, that the consumer
paws 81 box duty on glass that he buys for So;
q cents pound on nails that he buys for 3; and
s cents yard on coarse cotton goods that he
BUYS for s. Such are the absurdites into which
these stale anti tariff theories involve their vota-
ries; but suppose what they allege were true in
point OF fact and that the duty is really added
TO the price, the cost of cotton goods being 20
cents when the duty of cents was imposed,
add the duty, the price would be, of course, 80
cents yard, and the duty only % per cent in.
stead Of 100 as stated by the committee; hence,
if you raise the price FIVE fold, then the duty is
quite reasonable and there will be no objection
whatever to its payment. Let the manufactu-
rer, then, run up his price from 5 to 25 cents
ward, and he at once silences all the objections
of the Committee OF Ways and Means, as this
would fix the duty at 80 per cent, just what they
want it, But suppose the manufacturer were TO
reduce his price to one cent yard, then the du-
ly, being cents, would be 800 per cent. Hor-
rid oppression who would submit to pay duty
of 800 per cent! Who could then refuse to 60
with the Committee of Ways and Means tor re-
ducinr such enormous duties!
ABsURD1rIEs OF THE REPORT.
But the Committee of Ways and Means say
that the object of this bill is to increase the re-
venue by reducing the duties yet, in the very
same paragraph they say, that should the revenue
be found redundant, 10 avoid the horrd evils Of
deposites or distribution among the States, the
duties should be instantly reduced, SO as to re-
duce the revenue to the wants OF the Govern
ment; at this time, the committee say, there is
not revenue enough and they propose to increase
it by reducing the duties; but should it turn out
that there is too much, then they say reduce it
by reducing the duties. Thus reduction of du-
ties is alike efectual with the committee for re-
duction or for an increase Of revenue. Excel
lent disciples of DIR. Sangrado, who had but one
remedy for all diseases, " bleeding and warm va
ter How such papable contradiction is to
be reconciled or explained am at loss to con-
lecture.
The committee proceed next to say that it is
the true policy OF every interest IN the country
except manufacturers, to advocate the proposed
reduction of duties, and they especially name ag.
riculture. Now, sir, in my opinion the reverse
of this proposition is true; agriculture is much
more interested in the maintenance OF the pres
ent protective tariff than the manufacturer, and
for the most obvious reasons; high protective du-
ties calculated to induce increased investment
in manufactures; the effect of this is clearly to
increase the demand for the raw material and
bread stuffs produced by the farmers and the ne
cessary consequence of this increased demand is
10 increase the price of every thing the farmer
has to sell, and, by increasing the quantity, re-
duce the price of manufactured goods. Thus
the protective policy enables the farmers to sell
higher and buy lower; while, on the other hand,
increased competition obliges the manufacturer to
sell lower and buy his supplies at higher rates;
yet it is asserted in this report, and in every anti
tariff speech, that high protective duties are i'm
posed for the benefit Of the manufacturer at the
expense of the farmer. Now l submit whether
practically the opposite of this proposition is not
the truth and whether such is not the necessary
and unavoidable result of the great laws of de-
mand and supply which regulate and control
prices throughout the world.
But agriculture is still further benefited by the
protective policy. BY increasing manufactures,
it wthdraws portion of the capital and hands
from agriculture, and converts them into consum-
ers instead of producers, into customers instead
of rivals; thus diminishing the quantity and in
creasing the demand for agricultural supplies, and
at the same time increasing the supply and reduc-
ing the price of the manufactured goods which
they get in exchange. Thus, in every point of
view in which the subject can be considered, the
farmer is more benefited than the manufacturer
by the adoption and maintenance of the protective
policy. BY way Of llustration-suppose in
village there is one manufacturing establishment
of woolen goods ; here the surrounding farmers
sell their wool and other agricultural supplies ;
the manufacturer, having a monopoly, regulates
he demands what he pleases, and gives what he
will but suppose a high protective tariff on
woolen goods is passed, and instead of one wool
Ian factnr.r thnr int, ;oxiStancc five