Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-07-19

All manufactures Of wool, except carpetngs, hannes
baizes blankets clothing, hosiery, gloves, ane
caps pay duty Of 40 per cent ad valorem.
els not this equal justice 1.-THE imported article being
ed according to its value Do not the rich and poor con
butte the exactly in proportion to what they pur
chase and use
sCarpes-Wilton and Saxony pay Go cents per square
yard Brussels and Turkey pay SIS per square yard
Venetian, ngran and all Others 80 per square yard
Here again. the Of the low-prced article is taxed
only in proportion its value Is this at least evenand
ed policy
g Blankets owprced ones Is per cent ad yaloem high
er priced ones, rs per cent. I'D valorem.
Here the poor certainly has the advantage
Hosiery, all sorts, 80 per cent. ad valorem.
'Flannels, all sorts. IA cents per square yard.
Ready clothing except hosiery, hats, bonnets and
shoes, 40 and SO per cent. ad valorem.
All manufactures Of cotton, 80 per ad yaorem
"All manufactures of silk, 50 so per h.
Straw hats and bonnets, IS per cent ad yalorem.
Our opponents be ingenious, indeed, il they
find any thing oppressive injurious the poor these
mposts II they put their finger single clause of the
tariff in which the article used by the poor taxed
oppessve than the corresponding article used by the rich
man. they will at least have show of argument their
side Until they do this their assertions pronounced
founded and their arguments without weight"
Our opponents in this discussion have adopted
their lucubrations under the word I" COMMUNICATED
thus sheltering themselves from considerable por-
ton of responsibility to facts, and from nearly all
the responsibility which arises from conclusions.
ny no means envious of the conscious feeling which
dictates this procedure, we do not desire to share
any of its fanced advantages, nor shall we ever no
tce any thing which is launched either at us or our
opinions from such masked batteries We will,
however, state that the Nashville Unon' has a
4 H. oh. n n
Gated and entitled "Operation ofhe Protective
Iarif on oar Mechanics In this acommunica-
ted article is asserted that high protective
tariff (meaning the present one) " tends to the
wealth of great manufacturers and monopolists, and
destroys the profits of our humber but more useful
scattered through the Union.' Awhole
column of assertion, without proof of broad gener-
aLhes without any particular application, and of
principles from which no consequences are educed
and of consequences deduced from principles not
stated, bolster up this text. We know that such
trrago OF inconsistencies can have no effect upon
the well-informed mechanics of Tennessee With
the foregoing statement respecting the tariff before
them, we feel assured that they will draw the pro-
per conclusions.
We have asserted that the present tariff is as
uniform in its operation and free from oppression
and partialty in its general character as human le-
gislation well devise" In making good this
assertion, have to examine the effects which ii
has upon the different classes into which our popu-
ation is divided. We will suppose the following
divisions rich and poor, producer and consumer,
agriculturist merchant and mechanic
We know OF no other classification which has any
bearing upon the discussion. So far as the arbitra-
ry distinctions of rich and poor are concerned we
have shown that the tariff has no oppressive effect
upon the latter, and we have never heard il accused
nj any IuIu III Tho VI n.
vide producers into two classes-the producer Of
the domestic article and the importer of the foreign
one. The opponent Of the tariff accuses it with
unduly benehting the home producer. To 90 into
this discussion fully would be to repeat the volumes
which have been written on the subject A cues
ton or two may suffice. Ii the home producer be
unduly benefited, at whose expense is he SO bene-
flied IL it be said at that of the consumer, it may
be asked, how do you prove this, when every arti-
Gle produced is without almost single exception
furnished at iotcer rate than IL cas before tie IA
riff tcds u, existence? The Nashville Union de-
nes1his, and says that domestic goods were selling
in 1912, before the passage Of the tariff law, at
lower rate than they are at present. Thus, light
sheetings selling in 1912 al 81, in 1915 at 81
heavy sheetings at the price al at both pc
RODS light shirtings at at the former and 81 AT
the latter and drillings at "a in 1912 and 81 in
l845. Our contemporary does not appear to make
any allowance for the difference of price in the raw
material at the different periods. Nor does he take
into consideration the increased demand for cotton
either at home or abroad, nor does he pay any re-
gard to the quantity of cotton raised the two pc
RODS. Let him combine all these elements in his
and see whether, admitting the tariff
had remained at the 20 per cent duty Of 1912, the
prices of the articles he has quoted would have been
as low as they now. We are led to suppose,
from comparison Of all these things, that the prices
would have been considerably higher but for the
encouragement given to domestic manufactures by
the present tariff. We might safely ground this as
sertion upon fact and that is that the increased
supply of the material since 1912 has not equal
led the increased demand, circumstance sufficient
in itself to much greater increase in prices
Of the manufactured article than the Nashville Union
quotes: and the keeping down Of the price can be
attributed tono other cause than the operation of
the tariff. In further support Of our opinion, we
state upon good authority that cotton baggng and
baerope much cheaper than they were before
the operation OF the present tariff Is this nothing
TO our Western and Southern citizens? Is not SUI
gar also cheaper than was in 1912 To what
these effects be attributed but to the encourage
ment of the growth Of hemp in the West, and OF
tho manufacture of sugar in the South, by the duties
levied on the imported articlee by the tariff Of $40
we could 90 on citing almost every item of the Ia
riff : the above, however, may suffice until our op-
ponents quote some articles where a contrary effect
has been produced. When they do, we have little
doubt but that we show the charge TO be as
groundless the one they have adduced about cot
ton manufactures. We deny, therefore, that the
consumer has been injured by the tariff; and, if he
has not been injured, who has We shall not be