New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-07-21
Those Rascally Protection,sts.


Undsr the present law raw aud sheahing copper arc
both free such ipusce Of the act Of 1892 II 1s
an enormous duty cotton goods 10 shut out INC
articles and then 1t admits free Of duty all sucn ~
OF other countries obtained By an exchange %
ton goods On the other hand such Articles d, :. ~
taned by exchange Of agricultural ptoaue a oss
with heavy duty Raw copper oousnI VIZ hs. md
comes IN free, iron snd coal bought WIZ S 49, .h
corn pay ar enormous duty. On simN groues s"e
Wings oppose the duty on tea as IL a. ~ a
cotton goods and any duty upon 1t Woulo aec' INC se
Of such goods. -,
~ The perversity CT the Evening Post win
regard to the Tariff can hardly surprise any who
are aware of its extreme ignorance oil facts 10
this case il betrays ignorance OF its ewn course IS
well as of every ones else. The Wing Tariff OF
1912 as originally framed and passed by the House,
imposed d uty Of cents per pound on Sheathing
Copper. Blu, desperate clamor was set up against
this, not by Cotton spinners nor those in any way
engaged in Manufactures, but by New York I'm
porters, with the Evening Post Jour memory can
20, deceive us lighting their battle for dear life
They represented tina, The duty on Sheaihing Cop
per would have no other effect than 10 cause all our
vessels to be coppered in Europe and deprive our
Mechanics Of the work. We fought the whole
combination TO The best Of our ability AMI the duty
was carried through the House but it was struck
out by the Finance Committee of the SENATE as
concession the Shipping Interest And now Inc
Post is ping on to US Tariff men for an act which
was So substantially its own
Raw Copper pig, &C. was allowed to come IN
free in 1912, while Iron and Coal were protected,
simply because Iron and Coal were home products,
while 1t was not then known that our Country had
any considerable mines Of Copper. The 'circum'
stances are now different. 1t may or may not be
advisable to impose duty on Copper but 10 tax
raw material and lei in the manufactured article free
is stroke policy never tried by any Statesmen
Free Trade or Protective, but Walker and Mckay,
and never defended in any Journal bu. the Post.
What means The Post by its assertion that On
similar grounds the Wings oppose The duty on
Tea" dc.7 Is it ignorant that Tea 'caS taxed in
the Tariff of 40 2 as first passed by the Whigs-
that Mr.. Clay, Mr. Fillmore. and the great body OF
the Wings struggled hard TO keep it taxed; but
Loco. Focosm raised such clamor against Tax
ipe the poor mans drink" that the 90 per cent
Revenue duty thereon finally given up7 We
deny it's assertion, aud demand the evidence that
the Wings oppose the duty on Tea" &c. Nearly
all the opposition we have heard Of has been made
by it's own party.
Below the above in the Post is Washington
letter. assuming to prove that Mckays duty on
Wool is t,oent ytpo per cent higher than that by the
present Tariff because on the Wool actually import
ed during the last year, the Mckay bill would have
imposed higher duties than the present Tariff But
that Wool was almost exclusively the cheap, coarse
s,ap Of South America. costing less than seven
cents per pound, and SO charged but per cent on
the presumption that it would not compete with our
home grown Wool, while all the better qualities are
excluded by duty Of three cents per pound specific
and 30 per cent ad valorem. By the Post man s
logic If this duty had been iorer 80 as to admit fair
grades of Wool. II would have been proved higher,
as more Wool would have come in under the high
duty, and so the average per ceutase collected on
all the Wool imported would have ruled higher
But need we waste time on such evident fallacies p?