Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1846-10-08

hempen article free Of duty and otherwise affected
the duties on manufactures; and in 1888 the COM
promise act established wholly new system of du-
ties, which the same author Culoch) hailed as
the harbinger of prosperity to England. Indeed he
eXutngly declared that those notifications of the
tariff had given death blow to our manufactures.
But fortunately for the country, the destructive pc
Rod of that act just before the close Of its ten
years continuance, and we We're not bound by the
solemnity ois pledge long to bleed under the cruel
stab. In 1912 the wound was stanched. but the
whole body polite was in tue very last stages of
sinking. Yet see how like charm, with the re-
turning smile OF a fostering Government, life and
activity return, and every Industrial interest springs
to It's feet again. But the grumbing cotton plant
er, like the elder brother in the parable of the pro-
diga son, stands Off aar and refuses to join i'm the
universal JOY upon his brothers. return 1t seems
to he the fate of Southern politicians to be embar-
rassed with signal failure in all their predictions
They complained that this tariff of iS42 would
only cause England to lay countervailing duties.
and to shut her ports in measure against our pro-
duce: but, unfortunately for their reputation as
prophets and wise men, the first thing we hear
N0ui England on the subject is that she has taken
OH the last penny OF duty upon cotton in order to
sustain and encourage the manufacture there like
wise. Here then is the remarkable spectacle of
two OF the most powerful nations ON the globe. ri
valling each other in encouraging the manufacture
OF sape the producers Of which profess TO regard
most to act and compels its rival to do ikewise)
the greatest curse which legislation can bring down
upon them.
What, then, have been the effects of our protec
tive system on this staple in America
l. BY protective tariffs it was first planted here.
< by protective tariffs home market has been
built up for this staple of greater importance than
the English market twenty years ago; for
when the tariff of 1924 was passed the whole
amount OF cotton manufactured in England was
only lSl ,OOOOOO lbs, and the whole exported from
the United States was only l42 2-5 millions while
| last year 4S9,OO bales We're consumed by our man
ufactures, which, at average of l73 lbs per bale
amounts to upwards of lS2 100000 lbs
8. BY our protective duties, first the English ex
else duty on the manufacture and afterwards her
| lmpost duty on the raw cotton have been removed.
AS corollary from this proposition, permanent
reduction IN the price of the fabric has been effected
| by the same cause that the cotton grower and
the consumer of the fabrics have been equally bene
| fitted.
| While these results in the operation of that sys
tenn were effected, the manufacture of this staple i'm
England has progressed with the increase OF the
| crop In the United States without respect TO the
duties laid upon her fabrics.
In this view of the subject, (and believe every
word OF this argument is sound and based upon es-
tabllshed facts ask you candidly to saw is not
the cotton planter more indebted to protective du-
tes than any other man, not excepting the manu.
! facturer himself2
have attempted to present this subject in new
light, by adverting TO one important fact which
had escaped the attention ofour people. IL have
succeeded in demonstrating the true effect of our
| protective duties upon British Legislation, | have
brought TO view matter which demands the at
tentlve consideration of statesmen. How far | have
eincidated this subject you must Judge.
OLD VIRGINIA.