The daily union., 1846-06-29
Dor the Union

Dor the Union
TARIFF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. MR Me
ILYAlNES SPEECH
day or two since, my attention was called To
the following paragraphs IN speech purportlng to
have been delivered by the Hon. Mr.. Mellvaine Of
Pennsylvania, upon the bill now pending before the
House Of Representatives. Tor the reduction of the
tariff:
"To give to the people of America some idea Of
what will be the practical effect Of this policy let
me read short passage from the report Of the Com
missioner on Patents, who is fierce advocate OF the
free-tode system:
"'In England the average rate of agricultural
wages for an able man with family is shllllngs,
or 81 50 per week; in France, 81 "a; IN Prussia,
90 cents; in Germany, 81 OF; In Holland and Bel
GUM, 81 20 in Italy and the Austrian States, 81 Is
The English laborer will obtain for his weekly
wages exclusive Of rent 80 pounds Of bread, French
46 PouHdsi Prussian, 36 pounds; German, 49,
pounds, &c.
" The laborer in this country who receives his
bushel Of wheat day, other articles in proper
ton will readily conceive the meagre fare and slen-
der chance of 'layIng by anything which must at
tend the foreign agricultural laborer 1t is only 10y
the comparisons which such authentic statements
enable them 10 make that thefree abOrers, the farm
ers, or mechanics OF this country can fully Hppre-
tho advantages OF their position -Patsni Office
Report, p Ills.
"And yet this is the condition to which the Com
missioner Of Patents (this Bundecund) proposes
ducing the labor Of the country. A glorious pros
pecl Wheat SO cents a bushel, and American
labor 10 cents a day. Mr. Mel. was very glad to
be able to present such authentic evidence this
from an officer Of the United States government
Being from Official source, and democratic
source, this, perhaps, would not be denounced as
whig lie. Now, if the destruction Of the tariff
TO bring the wages Of people down to ten
cents a day, it was high time they understood the
matter, and it the imperative duty Of their rep
rssentatVes to aPPrlse them ofthe fact"
The hon. gentleman charges "the Commissioner
ofPatentS, (ths Bundelcund,)" not with advoca,
ting policy which will reduce the price of wheat
10 50 cents per bUshel, and American labor TO ten
cents per day, but with proposing that very thing.
Ia other words, the charge amounts to this that the
Commissioner Of Patents, and "Bundecund, ;" design
thuS 10 reduce the price Of wheat and the wages of
American labor, TO the sums above named, and are
Aboring to bring about such result.
So far as the Commissioner of Patents is con-
cened, he is probably able to take Of himself;
but this Bundelcund" will reply 10 the hon. gen
teman from Pennsylvania, who has SO hPpantly,
nj to say wantonly, mlsrepresented his opinions
and designs.
II the honorable Mr.. McIlvaine knows anything
Of Bundelcund, he knows that he does not propose,
nor he in favor Of any such scheme result that
which Mr.. Mclvaine has charged him with ad yocat-
ing. MIR. Mcllyaine must be conscious that no man
Of common would be in favor Of any such pol
icy, would openly propose it, ( he in favor
oft On the contrary, II he knows anything OF
the individual, Of whose opinions and designs he
assumes to speak so freely, he knows that that IN
dividua entertans views precisely the Of what
he alleges them to be. He knows also (if he knows
anything Of that Individually that he would no,
knowingly advocate system Of policy which would
lead TO such results. ls il not strange, them that an
honorable man, land believe Mr.. Mcllvaine To be
sueh,) wsuld indulge in such misrepresentation up
the floor Of the House, in his zeal to support
system which he deems essential to the welfare Of
the country but which others honestly believe To
be detrimental to A.
might stop with this contradiction Of the honora-
bic gentleman's assertion, but choose not to let
him of so easily. | choose TO carry the into
Africa, and show that If he had taken reasonable
pains to inform himself upon the subject, he would
not have ventured upon a statement utterly at
variance with facts and upon an argument so lncon
sisent with the system which he labors unscru-
pulously to support, and which must recoil upon
him.
He cites from the report Of the Commissioner of
Patents the wages Of labor in England, France,
Germany Holland and Belgium Italy, and the
Austrian States, which range from 66 cents to 81 90
per week, and alleges that such is the condition to
VIII ch the commissioner, or this BuRdelcund," !"
proposes--that is, dssgnsto reduce American labor
because the latter least advocates the reduction Of
the tariff TO a revenue standard.
OF course the honorable gentleman means to be
understood that the tariffs of the countries in which
the wages of the agricultural laborer low, are
not protective bat revenue tnifsor perhaps they are
fresrade countries; and If the tariff of this country
reduced TO the standard as proposed In
the bill pending before the House of Repre- sentatives
precisely the same results would follow. The farm
would be able to get but 80 cents bushel for his
wheat, and the aborer but ten cents a day for his
labor.
Now, what will be said of the honesty or intei-
gcnce ofa man who would make such an assertion
IL. al Fbr
he cites, most Of them, in phich pdges are very
lo,o are countries pieh hare adopted the protective sys
tenn in the most odiois form
Yet, such is the fact in regard to nearly every
country which Mr.. McIlvalne names. Nearly all of
them have established the protective system in It's
most odious form; which | will now proceed TO
show.
begin first with
England For centuries that country has attem pit
ed to sustain the protective system. Her example
has been constantly cited by the monoposts OF this
country, who, in answer to the advocates OF mode
rate revenue system have constantly retorted "when
England reduces her duties we will ours" This
has been the reply. England, however, by Kidding
being about rid herself Of the restrictions which
have bound down her commerce and repressed her
energies has knocked that argument IN the head and
we no longer hear the monopolIsts of this country
citing her example in justification of our own un'
lust and barbarous policy.
France The tariff Of this country is highly pro-
hbtive Woollen goods OF nearly all KINDS are pro
hbiied. Cotton manufactures, except nankeens and
very few other articles, prohibited. Glassware OF
nearly every description is also prohibited I5lRoN,
(the staple Of PsnnsylvaniaD drawn or rolled IN IN
plates, bars, rods, &c &C, from SIS "a to S43 30
per ton Of 1000 pounds, allowing 2. pounds to a
kilogramme. Sheet iron, from $50 70 to s33 30 per
ton.
Thus in France, one Of the countries Of low wa.
ges cited by the honorable and very intelligent gen
teman, nearly all the manufactures Of wool, cotton,
and glass are prohibited while the duties iron, i'm
ported into France are much greater on the average
than in this country, and amount nearly to prohibi-
tion.
Prussia and Germany. Prussia and most Of Ger
many belong to the Toll Ytren, or German Customs
Union; which is well known to have established
very high protective tariff. will cite the duties on
the articles which protected by our tariff
All cotton piece goods puy $50 per centner OF
ll0i pounds weight. 1t is difficult to arrive at the
ad vaIorem equivalent Of this duty but it is believed
to be prohibory in respect to large class OF cotton
manufactures. Woollen manufactures pay S2l s2I
per centner. The same remark may be made in re-