New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-07-19
Du,Ies and Prices.

70 the Esifor Of the Tribune do.
and B. merchants Of New-forN, purchs'c
Goods in England OF The same hoesa' P"s :,
of tbiriy pef cert, and i imports ll' tree 'i
yu,, csrnn; = undrr<rll 4 iSiry per cent or
- 5,bsr words does not Il Earia increase ihe p!ics
OF imported goods
n lost CERTAINLY; ii B alone receives his
roods free OF duty, they will cost him less than
A. bv the amour; Of the duty. But this is not
,b., operation OF TART, winch requires payment
alike from al importers. Now the dniy' II II
h, Protective, raises up or !nyigorates the home
competition in producing the article and the
msrchan, SAYS TO The foreign producer can
buy the goods pay you dollar io' ten per cent
b,oer in nv own county. and save thirty per
cent. duty. Now you mus! reduce you5 price
twenty per cent. OF can no longer buy o: you.
OF course. he lowers the price, or nc loses The
marke, for his goods Il his profit was twenty
FIVE psr cent. or over, he falls as requi'ed and re-
uins tho trade. if less, he gives II up and II
p.sses entirely to the home producer.
The practical question is not whether DUTY
on an article wholly or mainly produced Abroad
after IS well As before The duty, viii increase the
orice OF the goods by lis amount. We can rea-
div admit tins. though ii IS not wholly true. \
dutv on Tea and Coffee for instance would be
mainl,, a tax ON the consumers OF those articles
though its effect would be to diminish the DE-
mand, and so to reduce the foreign pticc at "h!ch
we buy. But the question between PfotectiOnS'S
and Free Traders IS very different from THIS IL
I, ID, Nofi n artlyp-say
tIemp-is mainly imported under low dny OF
no duty. Our Farmers say, Pu; a duty OF forty
do!lars Il ton on Hemp, and we viii undertake
It's cultivation. They do SO, and "e buy 'hoU-
sand IONS abroad where we once bought ten thou
sand The question is, VIII Hemp now cost the
American consumer forty dollars more Il ton than
it did when entirely imported! We say, Surely
not. 1t may be little higher, but 1t is quite rs
likely to be lower Such we know to have been
the effect of Protection TO the home manufacture OF
Glass. Nails, Screws. PLAIN Co;tons, &c. Nc
Does any man doubt tina! these articles are now
lower among us than tllcy would DC Ii we had
never laid duty on their Importation We be-
lievc they are certainly twenty-five per cent. low
or IN the average. we oclcfe our tcot0 'ie
this day buying Woo!sn Cloths, OF all descriP-
tious much lower than ii there had never been
duty on the article. And why simply because
it is chcapor-reaIy cheaPcr-to raise our Wool
at home, card, spin, weave, color and finish 1t,
than it would be TO have all this done for us III
Europe, as ii nearly all would have been IN the
absence of Protection. In other words, 1t costs
Us less Of our labor to do This for ourselves than
TO hire it done in Europe, although Europe might
undcrscll US in money price if our manufacturers
were exposed to unaided competition. 1t IS not
at all uncommon to buy thing cheaper (that 49,
at less money pricc,) than would be charged
for it if made here, and yet pay actually more for
it-more of our products-than if it were pro-
duced a, home. But, beyond this, we are sure
there is no manufacture that has been efficiently
protected which has not eventually afforded Its
product at lower money price, even, than II
cost when mainly imported. Iii the writer OF
the above card Will look through the little pamph
let, Protection and Free Trade he will lind this
subject more fully and clearly Illustrated than We
have room to do it hcrc.)