Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1844-10-17

/ we pay our own workn1en easier for them than
those of other nationsP We Protectionists whose
Protection does not mean the same as Free Trade,
insist that it is desirable, general thing, to let
| American workmen do american work-that we
the People can better pay iron-makers, furnace
try than in foreign countrles-that we the Ameri-
can Nation can do better by making mainly our
| own Iron, Wares Cloths, sc. than by buying these
from Europe and exporting Grain. Pork, Beef, sc.
to pay for them. Such being our conviction, we
struggle to have the tariff 80 adjusted as to favor
the policy of producing orr own Cloths and Wares
at home But we have no thought in this of bene-
fitting any class, or increasing the profits of any
| particular business. We know that such cannot
be the result so long every business is open to
enterprise and competition the profits of any
business will be governed BY the average rate Of
| profits throughout the country. Your insnuation,
therefore, that Protection seeks to favor particular
interests and prejudice offers, is groundless and
! unjust.
| You say that you would discriminate in arrang-
ing Revenue Tariff; buthOsc? One article, you
say, would not bear ten per cent, another would
kbear fifty. You would putsdn each such duty az it
would bear without destroying revenue pray the
laboring men of this country to read and closely
4 scan your language on this point. To my mind it
is as clear as daylight that such tariff you pro-
pose is utterly hostile TO and destructive of protec
ton. For do but consider Ehws we mainly buy
|
were fifty per cent, but Hats we generally make
| at home; and any duty above thirty per cent must
stop their importation and so cot off the revenue
from them. Hides we import in large numbers, as
we use more leather than we have hides for but
Shoes we mainly make for ourselves, and any duty
like fifty per cent. would prevent our getting rev.
| enue from them. i ask every discerning man to
judge whetheF your position. IS illustrated by your
self, does not imperatiyely require discrimination
| against American Industry against the labor Of
| our own FORCES, foundriess and workshops. This
ground has bden distinctly faEesI, and argued out
| in The Globe; yet did not expect it would be
taken by statesman cautious and willy as your
self Here it is, however, as plain as you speak on
| any question. The present duties on Hats, Boots,
| Shoes, Ready Made Clothing, Screws, Pins, Cast
ngs, sc. are high almost entirely to shut out
the Foreign articles, and give the supply Of Ame-
| rican wants in these respects to American work.
ers. The articles are not higher than they were
under Revenue Tariff-many Of them are lower
but tens of thousands of our countrymen are now
steadily employed in making them, who in 1912
were out of work, or at haif-work. think the
present arrangement is right wise and bene6cent.
But your principle says No-this is all wrong we
must reduce the duties on all these articles that
they will produce Revenue that is, allow Of capri
cious foundations of our markets by foreign Hats,
Shoes, Clothes, &C. and thus keep our artiZans in
perpetual oscillation between work and no work
American Working Men! will you think of this !!
|
be imposed luxuries than on the necessaries Of
life. concur in this most heartily, so far as Rev.
enue is the object of duties. Put your revenue due
ties on luxuries, to the full extent; but do not on
that account deprive American workmen of the
Protection of their labor. Let us not admit del
uge of foreign Hate, Shoes, and Clothes, &c merely
because such articles are necessary; for your own
workmen will make them all a. cheap as man of
conscience can ask, if you only protect them from
deranging composition and enable them 70 ind
work the year found. But II fAeya arc kept idle
half the year by glut of foreign articles, they can
not make and you cannot buy 30 cheap a. though
they had work all the time.
You say, sir, that you would discriminate in ia
vor of domestic productions az far Revenue re-
quired.' 1t seems to me that this condition COM
pletely nulliies your good intention. You are
perfectly willing to impose higher duty on for.
eign products rivaling own, providing it would
not have the effect of checking Importation. But
this is the very effect the home producer wants
! if you take care to avoid that cannot see what
he is to thank you for. You say farther duty
would defeat the object of the whcle-the obtain
| ing of revenue But contend that there is an
| other object-equally essential and far more Inn
portant-namely, the protection OF our home IN
dustry. need not cite to you the preamble Of our
first tariff, (that Of 1859 y nor to the whole history
of our legislation since. You must be aware that
| Protection AND Revenue have both been kept in
view in nearly every tariff passed in Congress
mot equally the object of eceyy sten'--for some
were designed more especially for Revenue, others
for Professionalism the two have been blended IN
| every bill. and cannot agree that Protection
should be in any respect subsidiary or casual. 1
deem it of the greatest importance, though each is
essential
You say the Farmers are not benefited by the du-
| tics on Wheat, Beef, Cheese, &C., because we ex-
port those articles and do not import them. think
| your premises unsound We are to-day producing
these articles in excess but we have imported
largely of them within few years. and may do so
again. Only a few years ago, in time OF scarcity
Wheat and Beef were both dearer here than in al
most any part of the world. hope they may not
be so again. 1t IL not best for the farmers nor for
any body else that they should be So But your as
sumption that the duty does the farmer no good be-
cause we do not import N spite OF 1t, Is just like
the Irishmans complaint that the moon shone only
was needed. know that Potatoes, and believe
that other Provisions, would be largely imported IT
the tariff were taken Off
But admit that the Duties on Provisions are not
material to our farmers, in time Of peace and
olenty still say they are useful and beneficial to
the country. BY your own showing, they do no-
body any harm and maintain that they do much
good. Provisions in general are protected some
twenty to fifty per cent by their mere buiks their
pershable nature, and the cost of transporting and
safely storing Them Beyond this, the duty assures
the farmer that he shall not be deprived of mark
ct by n needless importation Of foreign grain
But this is a secondary consideration. The true
and vital protection to the farming interest is that
which builds up markets for agricultural products
all over the country-which enables the farmer to
sell his gran his pork, his butter, his fruit, &c.,in
his own country and often on his own farm--gene-
| "a AAAkn Than