Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-10-02

The N. Y. Express, referring to the late good
natured controversy between the Times and our
selves in regard TO The Two iron factories started in
this city despite the Tariff "ruin, INDUCES in the
following remarks, which are worthy of attention:
"THE TARIFF UPON IRoN.-A warm discussion
is now going on between The Richmond Va, pa
pers as 10 the effect OF the tariff upon their iron
works. In The course OF the argument, some
facts have been elected that we would commend
10 the attention of the iron workers OF Pennsylva-
MIA. The Richmond Times argues that the iron
interest OF Virginia will be protected better Than
that ofhe other States, from the FACT that,
"'1Nc greater eheapness Of slare iaJOr, which is
used in Virginia. enables the furnaces TO turn out
Tie best charcoa iron al as low price as the Penn
sylvania furnaces can Turn out their anthracite
,ron icich IS corth from three 10 ire dollars per to
less than Tie former
"Thus the white Pennsylvania laborer sees
that in order Ia keep his work, he must come down
To The slave labor and slave pay Of Virginia, and
be content with his peck Of corn week and ba-
con- with no cup Of lea al night, nor molasses in
his water A black iron worker is maintained
at cost Of $3.50 per year, in Virginia while the
white laborer of Pennsylvania earns from the
iron master $500 year. Now, slave labor is
no, going to rise, but 10 save the business white
PENNSYLVANIA labor must come down. The iron
maker in Pennsylvania must live on The coarse
bread OF the Swedes, and The cheap and scanty
food of European iron makers, il they would keep
their trade; and unless they do this the slave iron
makers, alone, will be able TO keep The field.
1.-TWO competitors now meet The white Penn
syvanian-lhe Southern negro, and the European
seri We wish him JOY, if he voted for Polk and
Dial as"
Can any thing show more conclusively the alb
surdity and mischief OF protecting" one class
of the communily2 Here il is assumed, that
Virginia can manufacture iron cheaper than
Pennsylvania, and that she is likely 10 drive The
latter out of the market. To save her inter-
ests, then, Pennsylvania must ask "pro,ec
ton" against the cheaper 'pauper labor" OF
Virginia. What is the difference OF princi-
pie in the two cases, foreign and domestic g.
II Pennsylvania is to be ruined by The "pauper
labor" of Europe, is it worse than 10 be de roy
ed by the cheaper labor Of Virginia If there is
any Justice in "prolecion" al all, il is as proper
in The one case as in the other-and, 10 guard The
peculiar interests of each State, il will be neces-
sary, il we are 10 carry out The doctrines OF the
prolcctionists, 10 erect custom houses on the Ii
mltS OIL edcn one OF the UnlleQ Sdtes, 10 project
its industry against the competition of the neigh
boring State. Does it mol follow, that il is better
for all sections and interests, that the Government
should keep its hands off, and allow individual
capital, skill, enterprise and judgment to have
free play unlrammelled by partial legislation q
With equal laws, each man or set OF men will
know what business 10 follow, consonant with
the pecul circumstances around him. II the
Governm means 10 interfere al all, let it carry
ont the measure, and "protect' one State agains,
another Stale BY impost duties. Is there any one
bold enough 10 say, that such should be The case,
and tina, free trade between the States should
be clogged by unequal and oppressive duties7
This view is strengthened by The comments OF
The Philadelphia North American, leading Ia.
riff paper, upon one OF our articles. To show
tina, the country was not ruined, We quoted the
Lowell correspondent of that paper, who said,
that there had been no reduction of wages-,hat
from the economy, system, and substantial capt.
tai which has been employed in these works in
this State, Massachusetts will probably feel the
pressure Of the British bill as little as any other