New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-01-07
Tariff Matters.

The Epeaing Post is nsver weary OF publish
ing importers tables of high duties alleged to be
imposed by our present Tariff on Foreign Manu-
features. Seine of theae are near the truth, 9TH
ers marrcd by errors. The minimum principle
introduced by Mr.. Calhoun in 1916, and sus-
tanned by Messrs. Van Buren,, Benton and Wright
in 1929 of charging duties on Clo!hs, undoubt-
eddy enables the Free Traders TO make display
of exorbitant duties, TO those who do not under
stand the matter. For instance, Plain Cottons
are estimated as costing 20 cents per square
yard, Prints 80, Qess than in Messrs. Van Burcn
and Wright's Tariff Of 1929 and thereon duty
of thirty per cent. is charged. This comPels the
importers to bring in good article-none OF
your shabby three.penny fsbIics-or pay high
uty. OF course, they almost uniformly prefer
the former, except when they want To make cut
case against tho Tariff:
We have tried several times already TO obtain
an answer from the Post to this question Hoa0
much more are our People now paying, in the
Average, for The Mghtared articles than they
paid under the twentyper cent. duties Of l84l-
22 This is very important branch OF the sub
iect. Will the Post face it
The PleJeian is distressed on account of the
American makers Of Cotton Baggisg, who are
now supplying the market at 10 cents pound
instead of the % which the Cotton planters paid
in 1912, when the duty was much lower. But
SO long as the bagging- makers are perfectly satls
fed, and the Planters cover their Cotton at less
than half the COS. under Free Trade, why should
The Plebeian be graveled? II all interested arc
benefited, why not let the matter alene
Now we do not suppose, and have never
stated, that the reduction in cost OF Cotton Bag
gipg has been effected by the Tariff alone. The
raw material has also been somewhat cheepenod,
and this reacts on the Begging. But all may
see, unless resolved not to see that our Bsgging-
makers can supply the market cheaper, when
they have demand for millions Of yards year,
can calculate the market, keep their works stead
lily running, and sell ell they make, than they
could when they ran their works perhaps three
or four months in every year, and often waited two
years to sell the product. Is there any mystery
here7
The Journal of Commerce repeats one Of its
habitual blind Stumoles over the laCt mat, d.
though we have Protective Tariff, Specie is 60
ing out of the CouHtry! We supposed it was
understood that q comparatively new, thriving,
rapidly improving Country, wherein Labor is
high and the Currency liberal, nsoer retains any
more Specie than ii actually needs. If Our Ia
riff were much higher than it is, Specie would
leave US whenever we had more than we needed.
But it is rather presuming too much to argue
that, because our present Tariff levies about thirty
Z per cent. average duty on our Imports, we ought
to be constantly drawing Specie from Nations
which impose still higher duties on oar Products.
The fair inference would seem to be the reverse
of this.
That we may buy too many goods abroad, even
under Protective Tariff, we supposed every
body understood that we haze bought too many
within the past year, we deem certain. Many
importers have suffered for it, selling CAGES of
goods for $500 which cost them 5000. This
operation appears to us likely to work its own
cure, though meanwhile it takes some specie out
ofthe Country.