Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1844-06-21
BURLINGTON, VERMONT, FRIDAY JUNE 81 1914

sails of commerce could wait it, will be called t.
abandon the place Of their nativity, their domes.
tic fire sides, and the temples of their God and
seek new home with the retrca'ing and pcrsc-
cuted savage upon your remote Western waters
losing themselves and their distinctive charac-
ter III new mass, and leaving behind them the
institutions of their fathers-lnstitutons which
! in their new condition would never be replaced
! Docs the Senator from New Hampshire desire
this Yet the Senator from South Carolina, his
co-worker and associate in the cause of free
trade, predicts it. lie presents to our magma
tons stranger familiar with the present pros
pcrty and happiness Of New England, revslting
that region after an absence OF ten years, during
which his free-trade system shall have been IN
operation, surveying the ruin, and eXclanng
"what demon Of wrath has visited this once
happy country, and spread over it the desoa,on
which surrounds me ~ Does the honorable
Senator expect by this appalling picture to Sc
duce US from our political faith, and win US to his
theories If the abandonment of the protective
system is to lay wastc our country. to exhibit It's
effects in the grass. grown streets-and the de-
serted and Wondering ruins of our fair towns,
does he expect as TO join in promoting this work
of desoaton!
But the Senator from New Hampshire has pre-.
sented his objection in another light, lie insists
that duty upon the article received by the tar
mer in exchange for his produce is equivalent to
tax upon his produce, and therefore that he Is
douJiy tared Iagrec with him, that it is not I'M
porant whether we consider the matter in the
light of a tax upon the foreign article consumed
by him, or the production of his farm given IN eX-
change for it. But cannot agree that in either
aspect he is doubly taxed. 1t may be one or the
other 1t cannot be both.
But sir, this argument is no better for being
turned into this shape. 1t depends, as before,
upon the assumption that the duty imposed upon
the foreign article enhances the price to the con-
sumer to the extent of the duty. The reasoning
is this if the cost Of the foreign article is rea-
lively increased, it is equivalent to reduction in
that of the domestic article. have already en-
deavored to expose the fallacy of this assumption
| 1t is suppose the enormots tax upon iron, lea
Their, &c. which we have already discussed, that
constitutes the tax upon the farmers produce.-
| | will not repeat the argument, further than to
say that the article is made or produced or made
at home, the duty on it when imported Will not
enhance the price, because it is kept down by
domestic competition. If an article be one OF ne
cessity, and is not produced at home, duty
would enhance the price; but it is not part OF
the protective policy to tax such articles.
But suppose ii is true that the tariff of 1872 is, as
| the Senator supposes, tax upon the production OF
the farmer of 80 to 40 per cent. what remedy does
the Senator proposed Why, sir, TO repeal your duty
upon foreign fabrlcs for this constitutes the tax,
abandon the idea of a domestic market, send your
productions abroad To the producer OF wheat and
other provisions in the Northwest he says, go TO Eng
land for market But he forgets to tell them that
England will not receive pound OF II II sne can AVOID
-that she will take on under the pressu OF ne
cessty when her own supplies are exhausted, or
G a o n IS SUBJECT 20 d yae % 10 r u cnns
pork 40 beef IS So bacon IS, butter and cheese So
&c. He foraets also, to tell them that the domestic
market in New England, sustained by this protective
policy, is worth more TO them than all the market
within the British domlnlons. We'll, sir, what will
the whea, grower gam by adopting the Senator's adj
vice Why he gets rid of this imaginary tax of 80
per cent, but by sending his flour TO England, he
subjects il to a duty of 50 or CO., which he OF course
has to pay himself, English wheat and flour are
not taxed He cannot therefore, add the duty to the
price, He sells his flour, brings home the balance OF
the product left after paying the dutes and here he
IS met by n collector who demands the 80 per cent.
not in the shape of duty but of direct tax for the
support OF his own Government. How much think
you this farmer will have left to purchase British
goods after paving costs and charges of transporting
his produce across the Atlantic fifty per cent. to the
British Government! The Senator would dssuade
the American farmer from paying the 81 per cent du-
y for the support of his own Government and nome
market but persuade him TO pay 80 TO foreign Gov
eminent, and subject himself To a direct tax at home
for the 80 per cent. If the farmer attempt to make
his way through Canada he Is no better oil the eN-
pcnsc Is greater and the duty the same. lie may
send his wheat INTO Canada where It Is subjected To
duty OF three shlngs sterling per quarter or y cents
! for every eight bushels. 1t must be manufactured
s sS r Is hs ppqtaaze aag when arrives n Eng
as it is called, commencing with hve shiIIngs sterling
the barrel. The whole duty, provincial ana ihpea''
nv way of Canada is about Two dollars the barrel the
yo"nso Of ,rnnsDortot,n by way fthe ST. Lawrence
exceeds that by way of New York, by three shlllngs
and six pence sterling (S4 centsD making Two dollars
and eiuh four cents the barrel transported that
woy. besides the loss of the profits OF manufacturing.
such is the free trade which England tenders us-such
her policv-a policy which she VIII not aoandon.-