Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-08-16
COMMUNICATION.
TO THE EDITORS.


Washington g Union" of the 7th instant! The
first is headed I" The Tariff and WooI Growers"
and is extracted from the " Onondaga Standard"
The writer says that the price Of wool has fallen
some thirty per cent. within the past year. Will
| he please TO give us facts and figures - And will
he please also to consult with his friend of the M
baay Argus, and ascertain how much Of this de-
probation has arisen from The Uhigs not haUing
gipen the extra price for ,oooi this gear Dhich
they did last TO promote political object, they
are charged with having done by the Albany Ar
gus Again: what proportion of the depreciation
has arisen from the apprehension that the protec-
ton of the Tariff will be Withdrawn from the wool
len manufacturers and that the woods of Spain and
Portugal, and of Germany and Saxony, will be adj
mitted duty free or at diminished duties "One-
| half Of the wool used in the Eastern factories is
brought into the country under a duty of three
eghihs per cent, merely nominal tax" says the
Onondaga Standard The whole amount of coarse
woods brought into the country last year was
l3,SOS, 645 pounds. Did the Eastern factories con-
sumo last year only about 2s,OOO,O0O pounds Of
wool! Once more will the opponents of the tariff
deny that the price of domestic wool did not steadi-
Iy advance during the last three years, until the
present summer and may not the depression in
price be in some way or other connected with the
election Of 'sPolk and Dallas o. Still once more
The census of 1910 stated the then last clip Of
wool in the United States to have been 36,SO2, 1I2
pounds Good judges estimate the produce of the
present year to be 80 100000 pounds, being an in
crease of more than 45,OO0,00O pounds weight.
Is there not in this increased supply little rea-
son for reduction in price, unless it can be shown
that the demand has at least proportionay increas-
ed If the replies to these questions can be made
to bear adversely upon the tariff, will unhesitang-
ly admit that it ought to be altered.
In these discussions about wool it is very desir-
able that the opponents of the tariff should be con-
sistent, and not contradict each other But, strange
to say, while the Boston Morning Post says that
these coarse acOois alluded to in the tariff do moi
make coarse cloths, but are used wholly or chiefly
for carpets" the albany .Argus says, when speak
ing of this coarse wool, "i IS the material thu
enters into The fabric Of most Of our coarser do
nestle cloths, satinets, &c" and that, therefore,
comes into competition with our coarse domestic
wool. will not take sides in this conflict Of opin
ion, but certainly one, at least, is wrong.
The other article in the Union to which allude
is headed " The present unjust Tariff and is a
I" communicated one. There is little remarkable
in the first paragraph, except a rather singular
abundance Of such words and epithels as unjust"
" iniquitous,' srapacious,' merciless," exac-
on, !" misrepresentation" sophistry," ssplausi-
BILE" perverted" monstrous," /" rob and riot
spoils," grasping' "remorseless," &c. If these
: tinguished members of the Democratic party who
have accepted office under the Administration and
contribute their literary abors to the benefit of the
official organ" then certainly that instrument
:" dlscourses any thing rather than most sweet
music under the agency of this performer, and he
ought to be degraded to the office Of belows-blower
This article is avowedy written in reply to one
which appeared in the Integencer few days ago,
but in reality it does not reply to single argument
OF that article except by calling the whole sophs
try" The lntelligencer stated that the commercial
position of the United States differed widely frum
that of Great Britain. The writer in the Union says
that the commercial, or rather protective systems Of
Great Britain and the United States in substance
the same. This is not meeting the question at is
sue. But how does he make good his own asser-
ton He does not notice the fact that the business
of this country is to export the material, that OF
England to import it, The English manufactures
wants our material, and the British Govern
ment encourages and protects the manufacturer by
taking off the import duty from the material.
The American manufacturer wants to keep out the
rival foreign fabric, and the American Government
encourages and protects the manufacturer by levy
ing duty upon the foreign article. II is granted
that the result is the same, for both cases the
manufacturers are protected; but is not the position
OF the parties Numerically opposite And this is
what you asserted, and think proved. | have no
wish TO ''baady Bihingsgate" with any one, but
| think the term I" sophistry' might be safely APP
piled to the whole of this article in the Union.
The writer in the Union says that in England
the design is to protect the agrculturisf by taxing
the manufacturing interests Did the alteration in
the corn laws in 1912 protect the agriculmrist and
tax the manufacturer Was not the operation de- |
cdedly the reverse? Did the alteration in the du-
ties on many kinds of provisions which then took
place benefit the agricultrist and the manufac-
turer No. Will the taking off the duty from |
cotton be of any service to the agrculmrist, or
be detrimental to the manufacturer Certainly not |
What single alteration in the tariff either in 1912
or IS45, protected the agricuturist more than he |
was before protected, increased the tax upon the
manufacturer What single alteration was made, |
at either time, which had not either negative or
contrary result! | ask for information.
Again, the writer in the Union says, the manu- |
featuring interests Of Great Britain, for many years,
hare NOT been protected in the sense of that term as
it is used by the protectonsts themselves" III
hardly know what he means but shall be served
if he will tell me what article of foreign manufac-
ture, which comes in competition with any article
of British manufacture, is admitted into England
without the payment of duties, amounting, in most
cases, very nearly to prohibition. He calls the
British duties cotton and woollen manufactures
I" mere reuenue duties" ! rather think they were
more than, Incidentally protective ones; for the en-
tire amount of duties received on those articles in
1910 was P32, 1000, or about 100000. / do not
presume to say how much this prodigious amount
aided the British revenue; but it is evident to me-
from the small amount of the foreign article admit