The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-02

Gleenham factory. which was especially singled out
by the Congress Of 1912, as one showing the nseeS
sty of protecton and he proved that OF their enhre
expenditures only "a per cent was for labor In all
the other items of expendlture-the cost of water
power and the site for the factory, the price Of The
raw material the amount of taxes, tho cost Of living
&c. they had the advantage OF the English manuiac-
turer We'll, suppose they paid twice as mueh Tor
their labor that would only make a difference OF
IL per cent, which, as shall directly snow, 10 less
than the cost of importing without any duty. 80
II trade was absolutely free they would still have the
advantage Of their European competitor And II you
would give them a duty of only IL per cent they
would have the advantage of his European competi-
tor, even if he did not pay cent for labor And
yet it is pauper labor they fear
Now, sir, am the representative, not only In my
legislative but in my individual charac ter, Of both
capital and labor My constituents and myself
cultivate our land with our labor Some OF them
with their own hands, others by their slaves
We are more interested in the profits OF labor than
of capital. You cannot impair the profits OF labor
without injurng MS. In this respect the southern
planter and the independent free farmer who cult
Yates by his own labor his own land, differs from
nearly all other capitalists. Therei no antagonsm
with them, between labor and capital; and this was
the real philosophy Of Mr.. Jeferson's remark, that
the democracy Of the North were the natural allies
of the South. As the representative Of labor and the
owner Of it to no uncomfortable extent, all ! ask is
To be permitted TO compete with the pauPer labor Of
Europe.
Several western members. That is all we ask
too
That is all you need ask. know your country
WE'LL am personally deeply interested IN 1t. In
sense | am western farmer a. well an
eastern one. The only ference is | do not there,
as at home, cultivate my land with my own labor.
We have greatly the advantage Of Europeans and
in fair com petition we must greatly outsrip them.
Profits are divided between capital and labor The
more capital is entitled to, the less will labor get.
For instance, the land my friend from Indiana be-
fore mo euluyatss, which is as rich and productive
as land can be- did not cost him $40 per acre.
Mr. KENNEDY. No. not FIVE.
Mr. BAYLY. The same land in England would
sell for FIVE hundred. In England, giving capital
per cent, it would receive SIS before labor got a
cent. Whereas here, giving capitol per cent,
labor would receive all over 30 cents But this is
not our only advantage. Where is our comparative
freedom from taxation, our genial climate, our nat
uraI advantages in our bays, rivers not nayigated
by such miserable craft we have seen are used in
Prussia and Poland, but by magnificent steamboats,
Where are our railroads and canals And, above
all, where our glorious free institutions APP
plause.
Bot, sir, we cannot reap the full benefit of these
advantages, until we have removed the incubus Of
our restrictive system We cannot pect to export
our agricultural produce to other countries unless
we will import what hey have to sell. 1t is physi-
caly impossible for you to export, unless you i'm
port Our exports are about one hundred millions
annually. This export, If we import nothing, would
drain Europe OF It's specie in one year; money would
become scarce there, prices would fall very low, and
our Export Of necessity cease. These are axioms
in political economy which require no proof. ltls
equally true, that # you embarrass your imports,
you lessen the quantity and value of your exports
The effect Of the tariff of 1912 was to curta both
our exports and imports, and to knock down the
price Of agricultural produce Before turn 10
the facts TO prove this last position, desire to ex-
plain the reason Of it, and | do this best by an
illustration. Suppose merchant of New York ex-
ports a hundred bushels of wheat to England
there sells it, and purchases with the proceeds a
hundred yards Of cloth Suppose so cents will pay
the cost Of expectation and Importation, aud give
the merchant a fair profit; and suppose the mer-
chant can sell the cloth in this market for 81 So II
there is no duty, do you not perceive he will be able
to give the farmer 81 bushel for his wheat But
suppose the government steps in and evies a duty
of IS cents. Gentlemen say this will not enhance
the price Of the cloth here-their theory is, that
high duties make lower, not higher prices Well
the cloth will still be sold here for 81 so. The mer
chant must still have to the costs Of exporting
and importing so cents-the government will claim
IS, and there will be only IS left for the wheat
And the trade cannot 60 on, If more ls given But
gentlemen will say that this is the falacious "forty-
bale" theory. know it ia the forty bale" theory;
and believe II Is TO some extent falacous. But it
is fa'acy on the other Side--the falIacy that the
duty does not raise the price of the imported art Gle
which proves it to be so. Admit the truth of this
latter falacy and defy any TO answer the "for-
ty-bae" theory. But suppose the duty to raise the
price of the imported article To the full extent of the
duty, let us then see how the farmer would stand
As before, SO cents is the merchants share 25 the
governments, 81 the farmers and the article sells
for 81 IS. But the farmer is but little better off ne
is consumer of imported articles, well as the
producer of the articles of export; and although he
does not lose on this supposition as a producer
he does as u consumer. And he fills both
capacities, 1t is immaterial to him. In either
event, he gets 25 cents worth less cloth for his
wheat than before the imposition of the duty;
and 10 the extent you increase or lower the DUTY
is he taxed, more or less. 1t is often very diff
hcult to tell to what extent the duty falls upon the
producer of the export, the consumer. 1t de-
Ponds upon variety of circumstances, which are
constantly fuctuating; and to the agricuturis
as have shown, the exact ad ustmen is a matter of
no great consequence. To this view there s but one
possible answer and that is, that the effect of the
duty Is not to increase the price of the imported
ticle in our market, but to lower the price of it
abroad. If this were true, it would impoverish the
foreigner; but do not see what possible advantage
in commercial point of view, it would DO to US
We would get the article here at the same prices the
consumer would not be injured; nor would our man.
ufacturer be benefited But our foreign customer
would be impoverished, and would be a worse Gus
toner for our exports. So, in that view, we would
be injured. But is it true that the effect of the du-
ty is to compel the foreigner to sell lower? In Eng
land, for long time, the pressure of population
has been so great and the competition so active
that prices had reached the lowest limit before the
enactment of our tariff. Besides, the proportion
which we take of British goods-and we take
more of them than of any other naton-iu
comparison with her consumption at home, and her
exports to her colonies, and to other foreign ma
tons than ourselves liz very nconsiderabe and it is
not propabIe that to gain access to our market thew
would submit to reduction the great mass Of
her production. They would lose less by giving
up our trade altogether. But it may be said
that have already proved that the price of the
quantity exported, which is fixed by the price in
the foreign market, fixes the price Of the entire pro-
duction In the of the agriculturist of this
country that is SO; but in the case in hand it ia
not 30 In the first place, our export of agrcul-
tural produce bears much larger proportion to
our entire production than the exports from Eng
land to this country of her manufactures does to
the entire amount Of her production, and of course
exerts greater influence on the price In addition
to this, the farmer cannot regulate his supply with