Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-03-22
POLITICAL.
MIR. PHELPS SPEECH.
THE TARIFF,
Monday, February Q, 164

tory epithets The English language was fruitful
in such epiIhe,s. but If tho whole vocabulary Of
them were poured upon this tariff of ls42, it
would not alter lis real character. He should
treat the question with GOODNESS and calm delib-
Grafton. lie WIS proceeding to show, OH for
mer day. that the foreign markets were entirely
insufficient for our productions.
BY the late census il appeared that the produce
ton Of wheat in this country was eighty-iour
millions Of bushels. The Commissioner Of Pa.
tents estimated IT, at the present time, at one
hundred millions Of bushels year. He suppos-
ed that the quantity necessary for home coDsuinp-
lion was 60 600 900 of bushels leaving surplus Of
40 600 600 of bushels of which only were receive
Ell by Great Britain in -four. He had also shown that
the exploration of -four to the Canadas was stop
ped ard thnt the amount Of expectation to the
West Indies was not diminished by The diminu-
ton Of our exports from them. lie had drawn
the inference from this that explorations 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. Tho
whole object Of it was 80 TO reduce the amount of
importation as 10 bring it within our means of
payment ifthere was ever condition Of things
favorable to the exportat Of our surplus pro-
ducts, according to the theory of the gentlemen
! from New Hampshire, it was prior to the enact
ment of this Tariff when the country was in
debt, and the surplus OF our products r0tung on
our hanJs.-But that state OF things did not en-
courage exploration. There was limit, as he
had argued, 10 the consumption OF our flour
abroad it was limited by competition with other
grain growing countries and by the policy oil for
i'm governments.
Ii could not be greatly increased by any legis-
ation on our part. The State of Massachusetts
alone consumed as much -four as was exported TO
Great Britain. The whole expectation of naval
stores was only about 100000 annually. But it
WINS n fallacy 10 SUPPOSE that the expectation of
these articles would be seriously affected by the
| ,,iuc ,ntar
II seemed to be supposed that the business of
manufactures must sink, or that cotton growing
must 90 down. This was another faacy. It
would be easy to demonstrate that The demand
for cotton must be increased by this policy. G.
Britain afforded at present the chief market for
cotton What purpose did she want II for? For
The supply Of this country for her own supply
and for the supply of other countries with cotton
fabrics IF this manufacture were transferred to
the United States, would il not create the more
demand for the raw material here? Tho trans
fer would increase the market. II manufactures
so as 10 increase the means Of the farmers to OBJ
lain cotton fabrics by exchanging their surplus
produce for them, it would greatly increase the
consumption of raw cotton But it is said that
by ceasiug to purchase tho foreign fabrics we di
mlnish The ulty of foreign malone 10 consume
our COTTON.
To the same extent, the withdrawal OF encour-
apemept from our home market and transferring
the labor to Europe diminished the capacity of this
country TO 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 oh tain
her SUPPLIES Of the raw material from us. The
most effeclual mode to put down any competition
between the raw cotton Of the United States and
of other countries, was TO encourage its manutac-
ture here, aud secure home market for it.-Hs
had biph authority for this view late djstin.
guisheI Senator from South Carolina had advised
him that manufactures would fail us, but that in
T, one way we might succeed-by manufact turing
F, for foreign market. lie advised us to bell the
ca- but he did not show us how to get this for
eign market We could not get it, without en-
couraging and building up the manufacture at
home and, if we could compete with England
in foreign markets, we could compete with her at
home. How could the extension of the cotton
: manufacture all over the world have direct and
Il inevitable tendency to destroy the market for cot.
Ton nude at home? That was a paradox which
:, had not been explained.
The argument that this system was for the OK.
o elusive benefit OF a few manufacturers at home
= had often been refuted. The Senator from New
Hnmpsbire undertook to support this BY acts-
lie alluded to the article of iron. He assumed
G that the population of New Hampshire was 3OO.
= 600; and that the consumption Of iron was TWEEN.
Il ly.fve pounds to each individual; that the duty
n was three GEMS pound and that therefore the
/. tax was seveniy-fve cents upon each individual
! The gentleman stated the facts, but they did no
is support the conclusion. He assumed that TIN
h duty was added 10 the price. One article OF iror
d was cut nails-lhe duty was three cents pound
n and the gentleman assumed that each man wal
n taxed three cents on each pound of nails that h,
IS used. Now the fact was, tina, where he (Mr. p.
II lived among the mountains. the price of cur nail
was three and hall cents a pound. OF course
according TO the gen,leman's superstition, if ,hs
j. duty were taken Oft the price would be hal
y, cent The price had formerly been eight or 70,
r. cents. and hud fallen since the duties were i'm
F posed. The Senator was equally unfortunate il
,e citing the instance of leather which was not IN,
% ported, and the duty on which was merely nomi
o nal and might as we'll be out of the tariff as in il
:, How. then could this duty affect the price of IN
article But The article OF sail had been seecte,
5. for the puruoss of showing ,he burden of Nh
" Tariff 'rbe whole ,Iuty Welded five bupJre,