The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-08-07


lection are different, and therefore the experience
and example of one country are no proper guides
| for the other An article, with this object In
view, appeared in the British organ Of this city
on Tuesday. Our present purpose is to notice and
expose some OF the sophistries contained IN that
| article.
The writer admits the fact that the leading states
men Of Great Britain, with Sir Robert Peel at their
head, exerting themselves moderate the duties
imposed upon the manufacturing industry of that
kingdom, and TO introduce the free-trade policy; but
he contends that the reduction of duties which has
already taken place in relation to many imported
commodities, has been done with view TO benefit
the manufacturer, and that they operate as proec
lion TO him. He admits, also, that repeal Of the
corn laws will have the same effect, viz; TO protect
| the manufacturer. He silly insnuates that pro-
lection TO the manufacturer the object of this pol
icy of British statesmen; and, therefore, it is justi-
able and proper in England to introduce the system
of moderate revenue tariffs. But in this country,
the manufactures can only be protected by system
| the very reverse-one which is highly restrictive
and prohbitory and hence the latter policy should
be pursued by our government; the object in both
countries being the protection of the manufacturing
interests
1t would certainly be more fair if these advocates
of the prohibory policy, and organs of the Ameri-
can manufacturing monoposts would lay the truth
before their readers, instead of attempting to lead
them into error by ingeniously-devised misrepre-
sensations, and artfully-woven sophIstries. IL
would be much more honest and manly, IT they
would tell those who look up to them for correct in
formation that in England, as well in this
1 try, a protective system exists; but that, IN the
former country, its design is TO protect the Gg7icu
t,uis, by taxing the manufacturing interests,
which are the predominatng interests; and in this
country protect the manufacturers, at the ex-
pense of the agricultural interest, which is the great
! predominatng interest here. In other words, the
two countries have the same systems of policy; but
they protect different interests and different classes
| of men.
! In England the great producing interests are the
manufacturing interests. Ii is the capital and indus
/ try of the manufacturers which furnish much the
| greatest portion of the exports of Great Britain,
| while the agricultural interest furnishes nothing
| not sufficient for the annual consumption of
! the nation. And the fact is that the manufacturing
interests of Great Britain for many years. hare not
been protected in the of that it is used
by the protectioniss themselves The duties on the
cotton, woollen, and silk manufactures of that king
DOM range only from fifteen 10 thirty per cen-mere
revenue duties; while on the contrary, nearly all
the material, and also and other articles of
subsistence consumed by the manufacturers, have
| been, until recently, more highly taxed;--cor in
seasons of plenty, being taxed to absolute prohbl-
| ton. Thus, the manufacturing interests in England,
which are the great producers of her exports are
highly burdened with oppressive taxes; while the
agricultural interest, which produces nothing for
port, is protected at the expense of the former inter-
ests
| We have adopted the same system in this coun-
try-except that it is the agricultural interest here
producing nearly the whole of articles of export,
which is highly taxed; while the manufacturing in
terest, which produces comparatively nothing for
export is protected. Hence IL is the agricultural IN
terest IN England, and The manufacturing interest In
this country, sohich struggling for protectonor,
rather, for the privilege of imposing high taxes upon
their rival interests, that they may thrive and faten
upon their substance. The Commercial, y or rather
the protective systems of the two countries, the
same. Thus, if the advocates of tariff system in
this country, when endeavoring to illustrate the diff
ference between the commercial positions" of Eng
land and the United States, would say to their read
ers that the protective systems of both countries
were the same, but operating upon different persons
and interests they would be least entitled to credit
for honesty and fair dealing.
If they were disposed to treat their readers with
| frankness and candor, they would say to them,
that, while the opponents of the protective system
in England were contending that the manufacturing
interest," which is the great exporting interest of that
country should not be taxed for the benefit Of the
agricultural interest there the opponents Of the same
system here were contending that the agricultural
Interest, which the great exporting interest of this
country, should not be taxed for the benefit of the
| manufacturing interest in this country.
| And more especially unjust is it at this time,
when the manufacturers are all dividing from IL to
50 per cent per annum on their capital invested, and
accommodating immense fortunes; while the agrcul-
tursts, with the severest toll and the utmost
my, are unable TO realize six per cent. their cap
ital. A system which produces such monstrous in
equality and wrong, will not be tolerated by the
people Of this country.
All the advantages Of the present tariff are on the
side of the manufacturer. Every article which he
consumes in his business is admitted Free or with a
nominal duty; and every imported article which
comes in competition with his products, is burdened
with an enormous duty ranging from 80 to 100
per cent? while, on the contrary, the agricuturist
derives protection from the tariff for his products
but is heavily taxed for nearly everything he con-
| sumes.
Nor the burdens of the present tariff confined
| alone to the farmer. Nearly every mechanic of the
country suffers from it in the same way. To the
shoemaker, the blacksmith, and numerous other ar
tisans the tariff is dead letter. so far as protection
IS concerned; while every manufactured article
which they consume in their families is heavily
| taxed. The cotton and woollen manufacturer and
the ronm master the recipients of the benefits of
| the present tariff.
In other points, the advocates Of the protective
system are obliged to resort TO Misrepresentation and
sophistry, in order to sustain it. They constantly
hold out the idea that the foreign manufacturer has
the advantage of the manufacturer of ibis country
IN the wages of labor, &c, Now the fact is, that
labor in the manufactures of England is but about
10 per cent lower than in this country. In truth,
considering the amount of labor done by the opera
tives here and in England it may we'll be doubted
If labor is any cheaper here than in that country
There is also difference of about two per cent in
the interest on the capital employed in favor Of the
English manufactures. But all these advantages
are overbalanced on the side of the American manu-
hcturer by the greater cheapness of oil the material
which enters into manufactures the motive power,
fuel subsistence, &c. The ingenuity of our coun-
trymen has introduced improvements in abor-savine
machinery which are not adopted in the manufac-
tories in England and that ingenuity has been
more stimulated by low than by the high tariffs In
this case too, the general principle seems to apply,
that necessity is the mother of invenon.n We do
not speak at random, but upon the authority of an
honest and experienced manufacturer who assures
us that yard of many species of woolen and cot
ton stuffs costs less to produce it in this country
than in England. Ii is, indeed, fact susceptible Of
the clearest demonstration, that in many descrip-
tons of the cotton, and woollen manufactures.
the American fabric is produced at less cost than
| the English. And hence the American manufac-
turer has been able to compete with the British in