New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-08-08

we Resume anu foulpi'tc our nasty i''''" "
the rejoinder OF the News on the Tariff. OF Hemp
that paper, after quoting our expose, says
ave gave the figures as foundthem The fac, re
mains unchanged however. that Russian clean nernp
which costs in SewYork $40 can be bought In London
for sl39 or $40 css than American wsferro'ted The
duty being 80 per fact which cordage maker
are well aware Of"
So il is given up that even RHssio Hemp IL no"
cheaper in this market under Protective duty Of e'
per ton than it three years ago under RereHne
duty Of 20 per cent But, says the News Russia
Hemp is still cheaper in L0nd0n lin bond, duty IN
paid than American water rotted Hemp Is IN Ner
York. Now consider the essential uniarness OF this
comparison. London is commercially close to Nus
sa, and products in bond in London are usually
well nigh a. cheap a. AZ the place where produceh
while Ncw.York is almost at the father end OF our
country from our Hemp growing region, and ever
ton Of American Hemp has paid thrice as much
TRANSPORTATION fhali inland as Russian Hemp in Lon
don has Then the highest rate OF American Hemp
here is quoted, though the lower limit is $40 per
ton less, in order to make as bad case as possible
for our Hemp growers, and prove that they receive
far more than Foreign Hemp would cost. But ad
init that the best American Hemp costs more than
Russian, does not the difference go not ont Of but
into the pockets OF our Farmers, the very class
whom the Tariff is represented IA taxing
On Coai the News observes:
There is no Anthracite coal imported. and the fact
that n does not compete with that which pays duty j.
evident in that the buminOus coal Increased ~ per
chsdrOn In consequence Of The Tam when An'hracit
coal fell slightly under the severe competition between
the Reading road and the Schuykii canal by "hch one
the other will be- ruined This competition was IN ~
respect whatever connected with the present Iarln-
tod nd ruIfiU
period OF the lowest Tariff years before there was any
prospect Of rise in duties. The following shows the
coal brought TO market;
ls4I 1872 1913. 1874 isi5, mo
Canal 5sl692 49IGo2 1i7O57 3os tf3 OLA
Railroad. 1920 2jO2J1 4il,4yl 322,'-t
The Reading Road in direct competition a
whole year under the low duties Its effect has been 10
increase the supply TO prevent the Schuyi
kill Canal from monopoly. Hence the low price"
The News cannot escape in this fog. It's habit
ual Free Trade assumption that when the price Of
Foreign article is raised by the Tariff the price o.
the competing Domestic article rises also, by natu-
raj law. This has been fifty times repeated in Con
gress in reference to this very article OF Coal You
must take the duty of Foreign Coal, said the Free
Trade Members from this City, in order TO let our
poor people in New York have cheap fuel Well
the present duty put high specific duty on Foreign
Coal equal to at least 100 per cent ad vaorcm, and
though Foreign Coal has advanced here in conse-
quence, Domestic has talien--a fact kept out Of
sight by the News in first dilating the advance Of
Foreign Coal Now he talks about the competition
Of Canal and Railroad in Pennsylvania but that Is
moonshine. They not selling Coal at ruinous
prices; the Delaware and Hudson Company Is
bringing forward Coal as cheap either of them.
aud the Schuylkill had no monopoly Of the Coal
trade The facts in the case upset very confident
Free Trade assumption
The Tribune having remarked that Ce6e, was
not Protected article. and therefore not involved
in this discussion, the News asks
"why not pray If All imported dutabc article de-
clines in price that is proof positive in The Tribunes
estimation that the duty did IT, A. the only positive
decline in the whole list is free article, We have Mr.
Caudlcs remark. that's nothing to do with IT, We ap
prehcnd that 1t has something 10 do with H. inasmuch
proves that goods may be cheap il they Hot'axed
This is silly. This controversy grew out OF the
Posts repeated assertion that The farmers know
that the Tariff has largely incr eosed the price of the
articles protected by it. This we questioned, and
asked the Post to prove il, which i, did not but the
News undertook il, OF course, Coffee was not in
this category, and has indeed nothing to do with
IT, We never said or thought that goods could not
be cheap without fiuiy that ii wholly imported
they would bSm.ade cheaper by duty. Just the
contrary. But his we do hold that If Coffee would
grow in our Country well as in Brazil, II would
be made cheaper to us by Protective duty-not
cheaper tho next week, perhaps bu, certainly so as
soon as the Hone Production had become cstab-
lished and di:ased. This is the Protective assump-
tion--if unsound, why misrepresenltl
Our exhibit on Cotton Goods was a choker for
the News To show, as we did beyond cavil ON
most competent Free Trade authority. that Cotton
Goods are now actually cheaper than they Were just
before the present Tariff was adopted, was a blow
the News s,aggcrs under. This is its response
"Our 'contrvancc was a very simple one showing
Manchester now and the price of the same article here
being 100 per cent higher TO the consumer In relation
10 the duties we suspect friend is little inclined
-pokc fun at its own readers over our back All the
foreign goods which in the market, of descrip
ton ofihose tquotes at that time paid AeAe duty than
il now charged. The duty was then 2li per cent
minimum cost of 30 cents per yard. or 6l cents per
SQUARE yard. The goods now pay 80 per cent
minimum of ~ cents per yard, on cents per square
yard And there were imported in lsi 90ll 200 yards
white paying duty <5t3O5 Now the quotations Of dry
goods from the price current are no guide whatever
The following is actual statement Of the progress OF
the market;
Prices faad,rd D.atss Of Domestic Goodon about TIE
INST dap Of iurus iesl lsi2. 1875 and st-fatcn from
actual SAILS pads BY fS siding agents for the facrtrs