New-York daily tribune., 1844-03-14


wh> PrOtscoa asked aud Protection IeefTed ,nss
not received By of pce; for the single isaso
that thai Is the only Protection YOU can give.
Eleva ted Sir, beg you to remember that the
question OF difference between US relates to facts
| You broadly asserted that the Wing Tariff had
raised the price Of whatever your section has to
buy. demured, and have clearly pr0r ed by
the testimony ofmany unimpeachable Indianlans,
that it has had a contrary effect. Now it s very
little to the purpose that you cannot or viii not
see h0p and ,chY this is-since | have demon
s,rated that 1t IS. Ii you had merely stated in
my hearing that you did not see h0p Protection
reduces prices | would have remained silent
That you are deficient in information under
standing, is the affair Of your constituents, not
mine. II you were twice as obtuse or willully
blind as you are, should simply let you pass as
ncorrigibe. But since you have chosen to make
an irrelevant issue with me before the People OF
your District, viii meet you on that issue, and
show your admiring constituents how profound Is
the Craftsmanship of their Representative. Con-
sidering the necessities Of the case, | viii en-
deavor TO make my Illustration papable to the
lowest capacity.
You, Sir, though you talk Of "lce poor West
ern Farmers" get your living By making and
selling Law, as | DO by making and selling
Newspapers. TO this end, you doubtless hire an
Office, buy some books, and devote the business
portion OF your time TO waiting or waiting for
such customers as Fortune may send you. We
Will suppose that you are blessed with three new
causes per week. Now in order TO subsst, and
not dip too deep into the pockets of your butcher,
| landlord and tailor, you must victimize each ch-
ent or his opponent to the tune OF some tive to
twenty dollars. Very good. Now suppose that
instead of sitting day after day in your Office,
whiting a stick or looking over novel, anxious.
" waiting for the clients who are shy of coming
in to be done for, you could have just as much
lawing as you could do-a new client soliciting
and paving for your advice every half hour
could you not afford to peddle Law cheaper than
you now do And if lawyers generally could
be sure of a market for Just much Law as they
chose to deal out at the current price, would not
Law be cheaper to the consumer (or rather him
whose substance it consumes) than it now is
Can you not see this And if you can, how can
you fail to see that like causes produce like re-
suits every where that the makers of Sheetings,
Flannels, Boots, Calcoes, &c. can and ,riN pro-
duce cheaper in proportion as their market is
,oidened and made secure And yet here is the
whole mystery which seems to you so impen.
etrabe.
Now take my case: live by printing and
selling Newspapers, and this year have a much
wider market and larger demand than formerly
Do raise my price in consequence Just the
contrary: sell my papers fifty per cent. cheaper
than formerly, because | can afford to. now
print and sell newspapers a great deal cheaper
than or any one could possibly afford them if we
had a serious Foreign coapetiton-if the Brit
ish newspapers could come in freely and largely,
supplanting American papers just as British call
co supplants American calico, answering the same
purpose And, Sir, if there were demand for
ten times as many papers in this country-if every
family took one or more and paid for 1.-THE ave
rage cost of the article to the consumer would
not be increased, but greatly dlminished.-1ere
is the principle on which Protection, by shutting
out capricious, unequal deranging Foreign
competition in the supply ofour markets, reduces
the price to the American consumer. | sincerely
sympathize with your constituents, whose Repre-
sentative must betray his ignorance of such SIM
pie truths in Political Economy, but their humil-
iation is their own work-at any rate, not nine.
(,
tempts to elucidate the effects Of the Tariff.
Your borrowed tables showing that the present
duties on certain kinds of cotton goods are high,
are clear away from the point. Call the duties
200 per cent. if it suits you, and still must bring
you back to the only question between us--Hare
these high duties increased the price Of the goods
to our consumers? Your constituents (or those
of your colleagues have conclusively answered
that question.
You give another table (also borrowed show
ing an alleged rise in the price of certain descrp
tons Of Domestic Cloths since last Spring. But
here you are again away off the question. Goods
were somewhat lower in the Spring Of '43 than
they are this Sprlng-both Cotton and Wool be-
ing then fifty per cent cheaper than now, and
great many goods, the assets of insolvent strug
Cling companies, crowded upon the market and
selling at the cost of the material But both
the periods you cite were since TIE passage Of
the present Tarit, and Of course prove nothing
to the purpose. If you will compare the present
prices OF Manufactures with those of any Free
Trade year, taking into account the cost of raw
staples, you will find that they are as cheap now
as they ever were made, though possibly not 50
cheap as they have sometimes been sold, under