The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1844-09-26

ana me article was subject to protection.
J would he reached by Congress III regulating thi
tarlli law. He would then, raise the duty hig
on WOOL IN proportion to articles that required NJ
protection. lie would do this for the proleclio
OF one great interest But would he 90 so hig
that wool could not be imported? Prohibit i'm
poIaon, and thus defeat any revenue from wool
II he did, what would be the consequence,
would give to the farmer who raised wool, a per
iecl monopoly OF the market, They could CON
'nand their own price, according to the demand
Tor wool, the foreign article being oxcuded ant
every citizen who did not raise wool, and mus
wear woolIen cloth. must pay more, and wher'
was his remuneration? If he paid revenue duty
his remuneration would be revenue and relie
from taxation. Blu, if foreign wool was prohibited
II paid nothing into the treasury, and in addition
to the price Of wooden cloth. something else mus
be taxed This would be clearly not protection
but prohibition. And here was the difference be-
tween us and our respected opponents, They
went for all the duty they could get-alI you could
mpose-ior piohbitory, instead of protective du-
ties This Mr. w. was against. lie would not
raise up monopoly among our farmers any soon
eI than among our manufacturers; and no sooner
among our manufacturers than Others He belicv-
ed in fair, heal'hful competition, in every trade
and every thing But he would protec, the farmer
where he could,
See the inequality Continued Mr. W. of this
prohlblory policy In reference to wool, yon
benefit the farmer and give hun a monopoly, You
get no revenue. Ills nelghbor raises gain; anoh-
er beef, another butter and cheese aud pork You
cannot protect theta, and yet You must tax them
on some other article of consumption, 10 supply
the treasury the revenue Of which it is deprived by
nsl' TO my mind it is not either So long as
you derive the revenue, and your duty is II reye-
nue. duy, with protection incident, all other in
,eresls derive an equivalent because you get rev.
enue, But prohibition sinks revenue and raises
the price. In other words you establish legal
monopoly.
Garry this along to the manufactured article
Wool is the essential article ofnorthern agriculture
which Can he protected, Hemp, in the southwest
and west can also be protected, though think the
time is close by when that will cease--lor already
several cHrgoes of American hemp have gone TO
Europe, and the experiment has proved very for
tunHle As the new states continue TO open, II
will come TO be an article Of expectation. Now, il
is protected. The sugar Of the south is n protect.
ed article. 1t is highly protected But protection
there yields revenue. 1t soundly taxes US, as ev-
cry body can testify. We don't complain. Let
it 90 reasonably there, 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 remuneration for the three millions of revenue
from sugar? We should be taxed on some other
necessary article, TO supply the deficiency in the
treasury. This is an illustration Of the prohibitorv
system, and if i, is Just and polite in one instance,
one interest will demand it as strongly US anolh-
er.
During The last session, was one Of those who
was willing to modify the present tariff would
not have ugned this subject voluntarily although
believed that while the law contained MANY good
hngS,l; also contained many unjust and bad ones.
But was willing, when the subjec, came up aud
was compelled to ac, to do what believed To he
right will give one instance in which thought
he law defective. As TO tins very article Of wool
think the duty on fine wool sufficiently high.
hnk with safety TO our farmers, it nigh, be re-
iuced some-made 10 Yield more revenue and yet
DO an equally effective protection to ihem.W Whether
am mistaken or not, time will determine. But
peak Of the duty on coarse wool liom abroad.
There Is n description invoiced abroad as costing
not mere than seven cents, which pays dn,y of
i've cents on the dollar in valuc-a practical duty
If three mills on the pound of wool II is said this
WOO don't come in competition with ours We gov
10 wool worth seven cents, it is true; but our far
,u'pOse that this does, to every practical extent.
With my own eyes,on my journey from Washing
on in the month Of June. saw IN Vermont |
surrounded by wool growers, en-
poyed busily and exclusively in working the wool
# Smyrna which paid five cents duty on the dol |
AZ, or three mills on the pound. Another factory |
cross the street, was working American WOOL
iolh make the same goods sainetts for the New |
i ork market How stood these manufacturers
With reference to protection? Precisely allke--the |
10th made by each isproected by duty ofJoriy
.enls on the dollar But the rooi manufactured |
" the one il protected BY duty Of forty cents on
he dollar, and by the other with a duty Of fire |
ems on the dollar. Is the protection equal here!
Ii is protection TO the manufacturer, equal in
10Th cases. But If the coarse wool was chnrged
with ms much dat, as the fine. should | have found
me ftctory working The wool OF Smyrna; No. IfI
i il right 10 protect tho manufacturer il is right
o protect the farmer, also, and to the same ex-
ent This is one defect There are vast many
others. A great many duties under this law are
what are denominaied specific duties; not on the
value, but duties on the pound weight Of goods.
Take the strong. firm, black silks, which liz an
Article worn generally in all our codniry towns and
villages. Weigh piece Of IL value it. 1t will
weigh about double the same number Of yards Of
fine. figured French silks. II will cost half ns
mucb money abroad. Yet the pound weight