New-York daily tribune., 1844-09-04

You next take hold of Cot.ons. ead complain
that the cheap, plain Cottons are taxed thirty per
cent on minimum valuation OF twenty cents
yard, und all Calcoes the same on a valuation OF
thirty cents yard. This you think ell wrong,
though yeu admit that the Home Competition
cuts down prices as low as they well could be
This admission is kind OF YOU, but it is not the
arc sivaling those of Englend aad al other na-
tons in al! TIE open potts of the world. Inc
recent profits OF cur manufacturers which have
excited 50 much envy and been the theme Of SO
much Misrepresentation, have been realized III
good pat or heavy eSporta,cns 10 Canton and
Calcutta, where We sell at least as cheap as any
other nation. The British soldiers in lndis
whence We used to import our Co;tons forty
years ago. are BOW partly clothed in Cotton fab,
rics from Lowell and our Manchester. When
sc are thus rivaling all nations abroad, It cannot
be that we arc robbing ourselves BY wearing cur
own Coltons at home. True, Cotton Goods are
something higher here than they were when both
Cotton end Goods were lcwest-so they are in
England and every where else. But we are get.
ting our Cottons as cheap as any nation on the
earth, should not that content US hold 1t to
DC demonstrablc that the assurance Of the Home
Market given to our Cotton Spinners by the min
imum enables them 10 make cheaper and sell
cheaper, both a. home and abroad, than we could
do in the absence of Tariff, There is no mys-
tcry in this. Is is simply the case CT a tailor in
one village who has as much work as ne can do
and good psy for ii, and who therefore can make
clothes cheaper than another tailor in Il village
which keeps him idle haif the time and pays in
brush fence Tor the work it does give him.
But the minimums-six cents a yard duty on
Plain Co.tons and nine On Prints-these are
high duties certainly; but whom do they harm .
find that this principle of the minimum was
first introduced $50 far IS can trace it, with the
Tariff of 1916, framed and pioted through the
House by John c. Calhoun, and voted for by
most of the Members from South Carolina as
well as % 10 2 from New. York. This principle
was continued in the Tariff of 1924 and the
minimum OF lowest Custom House valuation OF
a ward of Cotton cloth wes raised from twenty
five to thirty cents. The same principle was
continued in the Tariff of 1923, passed by Con-
gress strongly Jdcksonian-thc bill being mainly
arranged, il was understood, by one Silas Wright,
Jr. of ST Lawrence At any rate, ii was voted
for by Silas Wright, Martin Van Burca, M
chael Ho6mqn, and 90 TO of the Members from
this State. This Tariff (thc very one, MIR.
Wrieht) raised the minimum or lowest valua
ton ola square yard OF Cotton cloth thirty fire
cents, so that poor mans shirt, costing seven
cents yard was made to pay five times as much
duty on its value as that of the nch aristocrat
costing thirty-five cents yard or over. Doesn't
it make ones blood run cold to think Of it Z? This
was passed, mind you by Jackson Congress
nonco your Wing Congressional SilaS Wright
not only voted for but had much to DO with fixing
its details-fxing them in this unequal way
too
Need speak farther Of your remarks on the
Protection Of Labor-your reassertlon that, since
we export Wheat, Butter Cheese, Sc no duty
can change the value of those articles lie, me
lfV you Nv yOiI O'fil ioS VIC tiI IIph
ing Cotton Goods largely, and, by your rule, the
price of those goods cannot be raised by our duties
on them SO long IS VIC export them. With what
fairness, then, Go you insinuate that Manufac-
turers get 30 or 40 per cent. more for their pro-
ducts than Farmers, and ought to pay 50 much
higher for Labor
Your assumptions that the Manufacturers must
cat up all the Agricultural produce and the
Farmers consume all the Manufactures of the
Country il we efficiently protect our own Indus
try, is unworthy the dignity of yoar subject.
Such talk may serve to raise horse.laugh
among the ignorant, but all intelligent men
know that there are many articles which we
cannot produce, but must buy of other nations.
We want Tea, Coffee, Spices, Tropical Woods
and Fruits, Arctic Furs, SC. sc. which cur
Country does not and never can produce; these
we must pay for with our Cotton, Provisions,
Cotton fabrics, or whatever we can most advan-
,ageously dispose of. The axiom of Protection
is that When an article may be produced in our
own Country as cheaply (that is, with as little
Labor as esephere, then ii is Dise it is best, to
produce it at home and not buy it abroad. 1t
may cost little more in money at home, owing
to the higher price of Labor-it may cost con.
sideraby more for the moment, owing to the in
fancy or rudeness of the modes and instruments
of its production-but where Nature has inter
posed no insuperable obstacles, Home Production
for Home Consumption is really cheapest and
best for all. To say that this is the cause Of Ike
pauperisn and misery of Great Britain is the
baldest assertion-you might as well attribute
her Social evils to her abundance Of Railroads
and Canals. In France, the most stFingently
Protective of all nations, the condition and recon-
pense of the Laboring Glasses have been gradu-
ally improving for years. Holland, compara-
lively Free Trade country, has been running
down for the last century. But all this proves
nothing decisively to the purpose. 1t needs
something more than the statement OF few
isolated facts to determine the complex causes OF
National prosperity or distress. Yet we must