Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-04-12

posed, III his late speech, 10 ABOLISH, as Pdrtdi
deiverance of British manufactures from oppres-
sion, not affording protection by excluding
| foreign commodities"
| We cannot perceive in what the "deliyerance OF
British manufacturers from oppression" differs from
the afording protection to them: the difference
is merely in words, not in consequences or effects
| According to the calculations Of the Globe, the
duty upon the four hundred and thirty articles now
rendered Free amounting to $5,OO0,OO0, which was,
says the Globe every dollar Of it tax on the ma
nufacturing class, "added the tax levied by the
landed gentry on the bread and meat OF the same
class, by means Of the monopoly given them IN
the corn law, would make the tax levied on the
manufactures of the kingdom ateast $20, 900, 00Ov
Admit this, and what follows? Why, that the late
financial measure of the British Premier has re-
lieved the manufacturing classes from one-fourth OF
their burden. If this relief be not protection,
what is it?
The Globe continues: And yet the class, thus
burdened with charge equal to the whole amount
'.of the revenues of our own Government, we are
told are protected by such tariff" We have
never defended, by word or deed, the policy which
denies to the working man, be he manufacturer or
not the full frution of his labor in the enjoyment
of sufficient food and all the necessaries and COM
forts Of life. In the very article which has called
forth the comments of the Globe, we said: Are
not the corn merchant and the corn consumer, the
most oppressed and the most of all classes,
to be considered? Undoubtedly they ought to be,
| and undoubtedly they will be-" We have advocated
the protection of the labor of the manufacturer by
the reduction Of the price Of the raD material, and
the operation of tariff Of duties upon foreign
articles achich competed s0ith the produce Of has
labor and we hailed with appreciation the measure
Of the British Minister, which accomplished the
former and left the latter undisurbed. Where and
when have we advocated tax upon bread and
meat or any of the other necessaries of life So
far as the British tariff evies any such taxes, we
deprecated it, and said that the classes which were
oppressed by their operation !" undoubtedly ought
to be relieved, and that they undoubtedly would be
relieved" -
But has not this Globe-condemned British tariff
been much improved, even as regards these taxes
on bread and meat" If the duties now levied
on these articles amount to $l5,000,000, what was
their amount before the tariff was modified in 1910
i The importation of cattle, sheep, and swine was
prohibited before 1910 the .a-;G of that yaar pro-
vided for their admission the payment of small
duties. Fish, fresh or cured, with unimportan
exceptons,) was also prohibited; the new tariff
permitted its importation on low duties. Beef
sailed, duty reduced from u.s. the cwt TO Ss. beef
fresh, previously prohibited, now admitted at IS.
the cwt. bacon and hams, duty reduced from 81 IS.
the cwt. to l4s.; sailed pork, duty reduced from
lbs. the cwt. to IS. fresh pork, previously pro-
hbited admitted at S. the cwt. rice, rough and in
the husk, duty reduced from Is. Cd the bushel to
SD. cocoa, from Cd. the pound to 4d; chocolate,
from As. and 4d the pound to 3d.
i Again, 100000 bushels of wheat, which before
1912 were annually converted into starch, for the
purpose of stiffening muslins and other cotton
goods, &C., were, by the tariff of 1912, rescued
from that use and saved to the necessities of the
public as bread, by the reduction of the duty on
imported starch from go los. per cwt. to los. per
cwt.-thus substituting the foreign article for the
homemade one, and producing the same effect as
the free admission Of 100000 bushels of wheat,
or between one-ffth and one-sixth of the average
amount imported. This was curious side-blow
upon the corn monopoly.
Thus it will be perceived that, even in respect to
articles of food, the British tariff has been most
bene6cially modified, and that it will be further i'm
proved we have little doubt. We are not, however,
the advocates of that tariff in all its length and
breadth. So far it protects the industry of the
country, we hold it up worthy Of imitation; so
far as it Expresses the many to benefit the few,
are opposed to it. With this, we now leave the
subject.