Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1844-10-17

vided the duty On the cheap, coarse wool which
costs less than seven cents per pound be increased
(Mr. McKay's bill raised this from i've 20 fifteen
per Gently confess cannot see this at ali 40 you
do. Letus consider
Here is an American farmer engaged in rrodu-
cling wool, which hecertainy cannot afford to sell
for less than wenty-f five and on up ia fifty cents
per pound. He is now protected by duty on all
foreign wool costing over seven cents pound Of
thirty per cent. and three cents speci6c-togetheF
amounting to from thirty Eve 10 fifty per cent The
course wool Of South America, Asia, and Barhary.
costing under seven cents pound, is supposed noe
to come in competition with ours, and so charged
but five per cent Your party propose TO put the
duty on this poor stuff up to Is per cent. and cut
down the duty on all better sorts latter one year)to
IS per cent. BY this change our farmers would be
protected by an increase of duty on such wool as
they do not produce, varying from halt to three
t0wths of cent. per ID. but this would be rather
overbalanced BY the reduction Of the duty on such
wool as they do grow, to the extent Of four cents
pound. Icannot say how great an inducement they
would esteem this change to grow wool worth less
than cents pound but il certainly would bepoor
encouragement in those engaged in producing all
the best qualities. Whether it would raise the price
or reduce it could scarcely, think, be question.
How you propose to obtain more Revenue from
Wool and at the same time give much protection
as at present, you probably understand-I do not.
For certainly, il you mean to do the Farmers
any good by your higher duty on the cent Wool,
you mean to do it by greatly diminishing the amount
unprecedented seems to me in plain contradic-
tion to the principles you have previously laid
down.
You say that you passed in Vermont village in
which two factories were making satinets for this
market--one from American Wool (which must
have cost at least 80 cents b. and the other from
Smyrna Wool, paying three mills duty. and which
must have cost six cents a pound-say in New
York duty paid. Now, can any man believe that
one mill would go to working up American Wool
at thirty odd cents pound when il might buy q
material answering the same purpose for secen cts.
or less than ia as much Could any Company af-
ford to do thiss No, Sir: no more than could
pay four times its market value for the paper
print on, and yet do living business by
making newspapers. You have been misinformed.
You have been once understood to state that Brat.
tleborough was the village in question but was
promptly and most reliably informed that no mill
in that village is working up Foreign Wool.
can be worked up into fair Satinets, Sleeps Grey,
aud other cheap Cloths, what do You propose for
our wool growers To raise the duty from to Is
per cent will not increase the price ofwoul cent
pound, or the Cloth over cent ayard. What then.
Do you say, Raise the duty still father 90 as to keep
out most Of the Foreign Wool why even 100 per
cent. would not make this Wool cost but 10 cents a
pound, and no man who has to feed his sheep
through Northern winter cannot possibly afford to-
grow wool for any thing like that sum. On your
false premises that this Foreign Wool il fair COM
petitor for oar common wool, and with your fanda.
mental principle that no duty 10 to be levied higher
than the rate which will afford most Revenue, II
cannot see how our Wool growers are to be saved
from absolute ruin. Happily, they have ample Sc
curty in the error of your assumption and the fab
lacy of your logic.
Now see many good reasons why the Wool du-
ties should remain as they are. In the 1irst place,
tney nave worked s0clI; our wool growers have,
now ready market and good price for their wool
and are doing quite as well any other class. Tts
production OF wool is rapiuIy extendIug, EMO II this
article is too high. as compared with other things,
it is certain to be brought down by home compete
tion. The low duty on the poor Foreign Wool,
while it slightly affects our Wool growers, enables
the Southern planters to obtain their negro cloths.
blankets, sc. at avery low rate-which 10 but right,
as they grow little wool, make few woolens, snd
many Of them consider themselves injured, not be-
netitted, by Protection These coarse blankets
come at only IS per cent. duty, so that those who
want them can wear the foreign made article il it
il cheaper, or they prefer Il. Now would have
no objection to increasing the duty on this poor
wool even to fifty per cent If the duty on the fab
RIGS made Of it is advancedto the same extent; but
and cut down that Of the Wooden blankets to ten,
as proposed and carried through the House by Nc
Kays bill last winter, would be to give ourwork to
foreign laborers instead Of our own-to fill the land
with British cloth instead Of Smyrna wool. My
Judgment is that the duty 10 better for all Ameri
can interests now than it will be after your party
have had the fixing of it.
Your next point is made on Silks. They are now
Except Boiling Cloths twenty per cent? charged
by tceight-Pongees and plain whites, 81 so per
pound; Sewing Silk, Twist, &c. $2 per pound
other manufactures of Silk, $2 SO per pound -
These duties were adjusted, ~ you are doubtless
aware, on the representation Of American Silk mer-
chants, who had found by sad experience that they
could not swear in Silks at so low rate under the
ad valorem duty as the agents Of the foreign man.
uacturers could do it, whereby the latter obtained
almost monopoly Of the market. To remedy this
scale of duties by weight was recommended by
has a fair chance; before he had not. The French
or Italian manufacturer who sent out his goods to
his son or nephew, who acted a. his agent here,
could honestly swear that they cost him less than
our own merchants could swear that their Silks
often made in the same factory-cost them. Now
there are few light colored Silks that get in too
low under this scale; but generally good Silk 10
heavier, and poor slimsy worse one il lighter
Doubtless some trashy Silk is kept out that would
otherwise be imported but who laments il Hon.
Senator is IL quite right for man Of your stand
ing to be giving the impression that this scale was
so adjusted in order to tax the strong, firm, black
Silks worn generally in country towns and villages
more than the family that INDUCES in the extra
fine and light silks Of Francer Just scrutinize
your speech on this point again, Hon Senator, and
see il II has not a nasty look!
You next take hold Of Cottons, and complain
that the cheap plain cottons are taxed thirty per
cent. on minimum valuation OF twenty cents
yard, and all calicoes the same on valuation of 30
cents yard. This you think al wrong, though
you admit that the Home Competition cuts down
lnyx fhev wall enulA Ia This nSfuia.