Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-04-12
THE BRITISH TARIFF AND THE GLOBE.

Our neighbors of the Globe" have an adyan-
tage in the adroitness with which they prac-
tice certain modes of argument, and adopt peculiar
forms Of expression. As we ourselves are not in
the habit of using assertions in the place of argu-
ment or Of resorting to charges of fabrication
" gross Misrepresentation" " mpudent falsehood,"
&c.; we acknowledge our inferiority to our oppo-
nents in welding these weapons, and shall not con-
tend with them for victory in field SO peculiarly
their own.
An article in our paper of the 29th utimo, head
ed the policy Of the British Government" has
been twice favored with the notice Of the Globe !:
the first appeared on the 29h ultmo, and was mere
~ flourish of trumpets to prepare US for the over
| whelming onslaught of argument which was fully
to expose the "gross misrepresentation" and I" the
falacy' of the paragraph then quoted from the In
tellgencer
| We said "that England still protects her mana
faefures Jeololsly and carefully, and that the late
repeal OF duties on the imported raw material will
act as a further protection of them' Our obser-
yations quoted by the Globe had reference 10 the
"repeal Of duties on imported raw materials" and
we do not think that they are Justly liable to the
charge Of either fallacy or Misrepresentation Will
not the repeal of the duty on raw cotton enable the
British manufacturer to purchase the raw material
cheaper, and consequently enable him either to in
crease the wages of his worllmen, or to furnish his
manufactured article cheaper, and thereby extend
his market? Is not this protection to the manu-
facturer? May not the same be said Of the repeal
Of the impost duties on hemp, flax, raw silk, wood
for furniture and cabinemakers uses, and many
other articles?
The Globe goes on to say, 81 the fact is, that Br-
fish manufacturers, SO far from being protected by
taxes, are burdened by taxes" What we said was,
and what we now repeat is, that the British manu-
facurers had received " additional protection" by
the repeal of duties on raw materials. They were
protected before by impost duties upon the foreign
manufactured article; they are no,O additionally
protected by remission of duties upon the rao ma
ferias from which they, the British operatives pro-
duce the manufactured article. The Globe adds
The manufacturing capitalists of Great Britain
form the LEAGUE, which now shakes the kingdom,
from the centre to the extremites, by the agitation
for free trade
We grant all this, and the effect has been shown
by the British Minister admitting four hundred and
thirty specific articles free Of all duty, shook frnm
the Tariff Shy the agitation for free trade" Wha
is the Globe here contending fort
On the 9th instant the Globe favored its readers
with the full exposition Of fallacy as promised
on the 29th ultimo. This "fallacy'' is, however
now raised in its importance, by being styled an
's impudent falsehood." We are now charged with
L., a. H., c,l.
been often reiterated in this country as to pass
for truth, viz. That Englanfs impost duties
favored her manufactures, and that to this pro-
fectiue system her superiority IN this species q
: industry is ascribable."
These are not quoted, it is true, as the exact
words which we have used, but are intended to re-
present the spirit and meaning of our assertion
Passing by the foul imputaons of the Globe, which
habit, we presume, has rendered unavoidable with
it, and combining ourselves to its argument we would
ask, how, where, and when have we said any thing
which bears the above Interpretation We run
some risk, it is true, in asking this question, for we
do not pretend fully to understand the quotation
Perhaps we are ourselves Inexperienced on this
point therefore state that impost duties on man
ufactured articles must favor those manufactures
of England with which such imported articles come
into competition and encourage the industry of the
country. This we have often maintained, and il
the Globe means to deny this, let it cothe the de-
NAL in Ineligible terms and, discarding epithes,
favor us with reasons
Our neighbors next proceed to reiterate their OBJ
servatons about the "great league of the manufac-
turing capitalists in England for free trade against
that restrictive legislation, which, far from pro-
tectng British manufactures by levying duties on
foreign fabrics coming in competition with them,
levied duties which operated as heavy tax on
: British fabrics in their own home markets, and
forced the capitalists to depress the wages of their
operatives until they were reduced almost to the
starving point. The duty most distressing to the
manufactures is that excluding foreign provisions
4 and giving the monopoly Of providing bread and
meat for the manufacturers, which enabled the land
owners to extort immense tribute from the manu-
l. featuring class. Against the burden Of the corn
laws, the league of manufacturers, therefore, is
principally directed"
Well, what were our own observations on this
point. We said:
Although four hundred and thirty articles are
now exempted from duty, there are more than
seven hundred yet remaining subject to duty. Will
not tne tea merchant assert that he has an equal
claim 10 consideration with the sugar merchant
are not the corn merchant and the corn consumer
tne most oppressed and the most numerous of all
classes, 10 be considered? Undoubtedly they ought
to be, and undoubtedly they will be. This expert.
ment II successful, will lead Ia another and another