Mobile register and journal., 1845-04-05


Secretary Of State.
The Tariff advocates in the United States ind sup
port for their system in the late British examples Of
the redurlion OF duties, Just as they did previously in
The British example of exorbitant duties Whether
E0glan4 puts ON restrictions or takes them of. Amer
lean restriconisis find argument BOTH 10 sustain
The theory Of pr election. When we are not called
upon admire the wisdom OF her restrictions. as the
fountain o health aud prosperity, we are warned
against her apparent reaxalons OF them, az insidious
acts against which we must seducusly defend our
selves.
Sir Robert Peel has lately abolished large amount
Of duties In England they have no scruple in calling
this reduction Of taxation. Hele class Of poIiti
cal often deny that laying duties is Impo,
ing "A TAX. TAXES of many necessaries of life are,
in the vocabulary Of large party, the specifics for
increasing the wealth Of The country. In Eng land
however, tie ministry n the opposition agree that
by reducing and abolishlng duties, some millions of
axes have been removed.
Among these duties are those upon raw cotton,
cabinet materials, and other products which are used
BY British manufacturers. The motive for these par.
,'cuIar .riciions is da"iaII, ei ~ ur, tna' II
will advance the interests of the manufacturers, that
is, afford protection TO the manufacture The wings
tins side of the water contend that this ia oniy "A
lorm for pratsction manulac ures that it is in
a'cnrIance with the system of promoting domestic
manufactures by restrictive laws, and therefore a
new acknow Judgement of the wisdom Of protective
tariff.
There could he debate on this question i'm
only stated fairly Sir Robert Peel proposes 10
encourage the manufacture Of cotton and cabinet
by letting in The raw materials free. Where this is
effected, what protection does the manufacturer re
oeve! lie is relieved from special tax on neces-
saries employed in his trade but will the tar III men
say that he is protected IN his manufacture by any
prohbtory law? The encouragement of the manu =
.acture consists solely in the removal of tax upon
his materials, and this the tariff men have the assn
rance 10 tell us is the the Amer caa encour-
igenent, which gives the manu acturer his material
free, and gives him monopoly of the market for his
manufactured articles besides. The duty on manu-
Pictured ottons, for example, imported into Eng land
is nearly nominal The abolishing Of the duty upon
cotton, therefore, leaves that branch Of industry
free that is, il is neither favored nor affected by The
vocates treat il as though the removal ola restric-
ton were ndentical in principle with the imposition
of burden.
But the resirlc'ionists argue further that the re-
Tense Of much revenue for The benefit of the man
uiac'urers, IL protection, because it operates as
direct bounty. The country needs a very large re-
venue, and some millions Of ii, which was raised by
taxes on the raw materials of manufacture, are sur.
rendered, IN order to enable the manufacturers 10
kets.
This statement OF the Case admits the complicated
nature Of the British system. but quite enough Of
it, Garry The statement further out, and il will be
readily seen that the American theory Of protection
derive no support from the Sc facts.
The monopolsts of Eng land not the manufac-
turers but the land owners Agriculture ~ the favor
ed and protected interests there. The free trade
men are the manufacturers, who complain that The
corn-aws taN them enormously in their FOOD, as the
American farmers complain that the protective laws
here, tax them enormously in their clothing and i'm
plements The land owners in England control the
government, and shape the revenue laws, and the
burden Of taxation falls upon the aboring and man.
ulacturing population in The form Of dear food. In
revising The system Of finances, Sir ROBERT PEEL
has released this class from ii large amount of taxes
and supplies the deficit by retaining Il e income tax
1t is measWre, and in the nature OF COM
pensation TO those interests for the severity with
which the cora laws bear upon them. They are over
taxed Tor the protection Of the agrcuuriss, they
promised ii countersctig benefit in the receipt OF
their materials from abroad duty free. 1t may be
better described financial expedent to equalise
as lar as practicable, the operation Of The necessary
revenue laws. than a scheme for direct protection
IL is protection against the unequal operation of Bril-
tsh laws, not protection against fore ign competition,
The necessities Of the British government demand
an immense amount Of revenue, and her manufacture
ing industry is the great source of her wealth and
strength. The adjustment of her internal finances
that her manufacturers shall not be forced to labor
under more Than their equal share of domestic taxa
ton, into lher competition with their foreign rivals Is
tie main object Of some Of her recent customs re-
lofms.
The consideration Of these facts, and their bear
ing on her complicated and highly artificial social
condition.. makes 1t very unsafe Judge hastily Of
the abstract principle apparently involved in her su
gle acts of legislation, or apply them. without
very close scrutiny and careful analysis, to the d.
reclion Of American questions.
n q IL # Ill a,s, IL toss-