The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-10-11


ed opponents. They went for all the duty they
could get-all you could impose-for prOhibitOry
instead of protective duties. This Mr.. w. was
against He would not raise up monopoly
among our farmers, any sooner than among our
manufacturers; and no sooner among our mannlac-
turers than Others He believed in fair healthful
competition in every trade and every thing. But
he would protect the farmer where he could.
See the inequality Continued Mr.. W. of this
prohbitory policy. In reference to wool you BEN
eft the faImer and give him monopoly. You get
no revenue. His neighbor raises grain; another
beef, another butter, cheese and pork You can
not protect them; and yet you must tax them on
some other article of consumption, to supply the
treasury, the revenue of which it is deprived by
your prohibition of WOOL Is this fair, equal, ust
To my mind it is not either So long as you de-
rive the revenue, and your duty is revenue duty,
with protection incident, all other interests derive
an equivalent, because you get revenue. But pro-
hibition sinks revenue and raises the price-ln
other words you establish legal monopoly.
Garry this along to the manufactured article
ure which can be protected. Hemp in the south
west and west can be protected, though think
the time is close by when that will cease-tor al
ready several cargoes of American hemp have gone
to Europe, and the experiment has proved very
fortunate. AS the new taes continue to open it
will come to be an article of expectation. Now it
is protected. The sugar of the south is protect
ed article It's highly protected. But protection
there yields revenue. ItsOundly taxes US, as every
body can testify. But suppose you carry the duty
TO prohibition, and to protect the sugar growers Of
Louisiana, entirely exclude the foreign article
What would we pay for sugar! and what our re-
muneration for the three millions of revenue for
sugar? We should be taxed on some other neces-
sary article, to support the deficiency in the treas
ury. This is illustration of the prohibltory sys-
tenn, and rs just and polite in one instance, one
interest will demand it just as strongly as another.
During the last session was one of those who
was willing TO modify the present tariff. / would
not have agitated this subject voluntarily, although
believed that while the law contained many good
things, it also contained many unjust and bad ones
But was willing, when the subject came up and
was compelled to act, to do what believed to be
right will give ore instance in which thought
the law defective. As TO this very article Of WOOL
think the duty on fine wool sufficiently high.
think with safety to farmers it might be reduc-
ed some-made to yield more revenue, and yet be
an equally effective protection to them. Whether
am mistaken or not, time will determine But
speak of the duty on CO arse wool from abroad
There is a description inyoiced abroad as costing
not more than seven cents, which pays duty of
five cents on the dollar in vaue-a practical duty
of three mills on the pound of wool. 1t is said this
wool don't come IN competition with ours. We
grow no wool worth seven cents it is true; but our
farmers do raise wool that will answer the very
purpose that does, TO every practical extent.
With my own eyes, on my journey from Washing
ton, in the month of June. saw in Vermont,
mandatory, surrounded by wool growers, en-
poyed busily and exclusively in working the wool
of Smyrna, which paid five cents duty on the dol
lar, or three mills on the pound Another factory
across the street was working American WOOL
Both makes the same goods, sattnets for the New
York market. How stood these manufacturers
with reference to protection? Precisely alike
the cloth made by each is protected by duty of
forty cents on the dollar. But the tcoOl manufac-
tured by the one is protected by duty oftOrty
cents on the dollar, and the other with duty of
fve cents on the dollar, Is the protection equal
here? 1t is not protection to the manufacturer,
equal in both cases. But if the coarse wool was
charged with as much duty as the fine, would
na' No. If it is right to protect the manufac-
turer, il is right to protect the farmer also, and to
the same extent This is one defect There are
vast many Others A great many defects under
this law are what are denominated specific duties;
not duties on the value, but duties on the pound
weight of the goods. Take the strong, firm, black
silks, which is an article worn generally in all our
country towns and villages. Weigh piece oft,
value it. twill weigh about double the same num-
ber of yards OF fine figured French silks. It will
cost half as much money abroad. Yet the pound
weight pays the same duty of two and half dol
lars, in the one case and in the other. What is the
consequence The plain farmers and mechanics
family, who do not or cannot indulge in silks be-
yond the plain substantial dress, of the description
have designated pay about double the duty that
the family does that INDUCES in the extra fine and
light silks of France. think this is perverting the
whole matter. If you favored either, you should
favor those who purchase and wear the more ne
cessary article. l do not pretend that silk dress
is necessary but it is very desirable to our wives
and daughters and sisters, and we desire them to
have them; and because we do, shall we pay dou-
BILE or treble what the lady does who is able to wear
the rich silks and gaudy aces of foreign counries'
Again-our coarse cottons-and / speak in the
presence OF those who understand this better than
Ido--take our duty on cotton manufactures They
are not specific; but there is another contriyance
applicable to them, called minimum duty, which
may be thus explained. The law says, every yard
Of cotton, beached or unbleached, shall be alued
when imported, at twenty cents the square yard,