Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1844-04-04
Continuation Of Mr. Phelps Speech,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1874
THE TARIFF.

subject He had hoped that this great question
would be discussed here without any manifestation
OF excitement. This was not question 10 be de-
cided by the use of rcproachfu and denunciatorv
epithcs. The English language was fruitful in
such eplthets, but ifthe whole vocabulary of them
were poured upon this tariff of 1912, it would not
alter its renl character He should treat the qucs
ton with GOODNESS and calm delberton. lie was
proceeding to show, on former day. that the for.
eign markets were entirely insufficient for our
productions
BY the late census it appeared that the produc.
ton OF wheat in this country was eighty four mil.
lions of bushels the Commissioner OF Patents es.
tmated It. at the present time at one hundred NIL
lions OF bushels year. He supposed that the
quantity necessary for home consumption was CO..
100000 OF misunderstanding a surplus of 40, O0o-
900 Of bushels, $ of which only were received by
Great Britain in -four. He had also shown that
the expectation Of flour to the Canadas was stopped
and that the amount ofcxportation TO the West In.
dies was not diminished by the diminution of our
exports from them. He had drawn the inference
from this that expectations were not cut off by the
Protective system and that the protective policy
was not designed to destroy the import trade
That was not the design The whole object of it
was so to reduce the amount of importation as to
bring it within our means of payment If there
was ever condition ofthings favorable to the ex.
portaon OF our surplus products, according TO the
theory OF the gentlemen from New Hampshire, it
was prior to the enactment Of this Tariff when the
country was in debt, and the surplus of our pro-
ducts rotting on our hands.-But that state of
things did not encourage evaporation. There was
a limit, as he had argued, TO the consumption of
our -four abroad; 1t was Limited by competition
with other grain.growing countries, and by the
/ mi n nOv
It could not be greatly increased by any legs-
lation on our part. The State of Massachusetts
nlone consumed as much -four rs was exported to
Great Britain. The whole exploration of naval
stores was only about $50 900 annually. But it
was fallncy to suppose that the expectation of
these articles would be seriously affected BY the
encouragement of our manufacturing interests -
II seemed to be supposed that the business CT man.
ufactures must sink, or that cotton growing must
go down. This was another fallacy. II would
be easy to demonstrate that the demand for cotton
must be increased by this policy Great Britain
afforded at present the chief market for cotton
What purpose did she want it for2 For the sup.
! ply Of this country for her own supply. and for
the supply Of other countries with cotton fabrics.
II this manufacture were transferred to the United
States, would il not create ,hemore demand for the
raw material here! The transfer would increase
the market. If manufactures of cotton were dis
ributed throue hout the Union so as increase the
means of the farmers TO obtain cotton fabrics by ex-
changing their surplus produce for them, il would
greatly increase the consumption Of raw cotton.
But it is said that by ceasing to purchase the for
eign fabrics diminish the ability of foreign ma
tons 10 consume our cotton.
TO the same extent, the withdrawal or encour.
ngement from our home market and transferring
the labor to Europe, diminished the capacity Of
this country 10 consume foreign fabrics Cotton
had become an article Of necessity. Great Britain
furnished the fabric for other countries. If she
was to continue to furnish them, she must obtain
her supplies OF the raw material from US The
most effeciual mode to put down any competition
between the raw cotton OF the United States and oil
other countries, wa. 10 encourage It's manufacture
here and secure home market for it--fle had
high authority for this view. A late distinguish
ed Senator from South Carolina had advised him
that manufactures would fail u.s. but that in one
way we might succeed-by manufacturing for q
foreign market He advised us to bell the cat
bit he did not show us how TO &c, this foreign
market We could not get it without encour
aging and building up the manufacture a. home
and, il we conld compete with England in foreign
markets, we could comrete with her at home
How could the extension ofthe cotton manufacture
all over the world have direct and inevitable
tendency to destroy the market for cotton mnde Al
home2 Tha, was paradox which had not beer
explained.
The argument that this system was for the ex
elusive benefit ola few manufacturers at home hat
, often been refuted The Senator from New
, Hnmphire undertook to .pppor hi. by facts -