Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1846-08-21
WHOLE NUMBER l67.

wise. ! ana 81 opinion. that 30 the present state
ofihings which has existed since 1924, there Is
mo- going back from tha' principle Of protection
which wascstab.ishDl in 1921. The law Of 1924
I'D not pass with the consent of Massachusetts.
u received ju, one vote, ! think, in the entire
from Ma7 achu-etls IN both Houses Of
Congress. As said the other day, New Eng
land had been addicted % commerce. But she
supposed lhe time had come when she must con-
form herself 20 lho Iaw or the country, and iG-
vest her cap.l1l-ior her labor was her capital
and direct her industry 10 such pursuits a. th-
country hal promised TO protect and uphold.
Now, sir il there il anything Inconsistent in that,
] admit the incOnsisiCncy-las itin the brJadesl
sense, and | agree To every word Of the resOlu-
non Of Fanueii Hall Of 1921. In the present
state Of things, there is an essential importance
an absolute moral necessity for maintaining
those habits, pursuits, business, and employments
into which men entered twenty years ago, upon
the faith Of the declared sentiments and policy
Of a majority ofbolh Houses Of Congress.
Now, sir, in regard to the assessment Of taxes,
inthe great measure proposed by this bill, con-
fine myself TO the substance Of the Instructions
given TO the committee yesterday. aud from
which il is now proposed 20 relieve them-lhW
is, raw material. The honorable member says
that. in most cases, this imposition is small-on-
~ five per cent. Well, what is thai Why,
five per cent. is enough 10 put an end 70 great
many Of the empoymcnts Of the United States.
Ifthev had not competition from abroad, it would
be different thing. But when YOU tax the raw
material and admit the manufactured article free,
or lower rae ofduly, if any body will 90 INTO
the manufacture under these circumstances, It
will very soon be found that the tax on the raw
material Of five per cent. which the honorable
member from South Carolina considers a small
mauer-a very small mauer-is enough to de-
eide the competition between the American and
the English manufacturer. England lets IN the
commodity free. She is full Of skill and capital.
Money can be got al much lower rate OF inter-
est than here, and labor al less than hall price.
/ How, then, can you expect the American manu-
/ facturer 10 be able TO compete with England.
when, with all these disadvantages against HIM,
YOU tax his raw material and admit the commo-
ditics ofhi rival at low rate Of duty! How IS he
TO contend. not only against cheaper capital and
cheaper labor but also against tax Oh his raw
material! He cannot do it. Now the gentle
man says-and he has a right to the oPinion-he
SAYS that the laboring classes will be benefued
by the cheaper price Of such cotton as he uses.
/ lie stated the other day that he thought there
would be an importation Of ten millions Of that
sort Of cotton. If that should happen. there
would be a very singular sight exhibited upon
/ the ocean. For, the statistical tables show that
in the course of last year, the United States cX-
ported, carried out Of the country, and sold four
and half millions of the same sort Of cotton.
Mr. McDuffie. The coarse article.
/ Mr. Webster. Essentially the same. The
article costing seven cents yard in Boston.-
Now, if an article costing six or seven cents in
Boston, like the article expected to be imported.
is exported in such quantities, is there any rea-
sonabe foundation for the opinion, that ten mil
lions of the same goods would be imponed!-
This is a matter of opinion. | will not say that
the expectation is groundIess because will al
WAYS treat the honorable members opinions
with the greatest degree of respect. But it ap-
pears to me perfectly plain that all descriptions
of articles alluded to by the honorable member,
since thev are exported in such qantities cannot
be expected 10 be imported to such an extent as
he seems inclined toantcipate. Sir, the honora-
bic member has expressed the opinion, that the
iarmer-by which | suppose he means the per-
sons employed in the agriculture Of the north
we usually Distinguish between farmers and
planters-will be greatly benefued by the bill.
| lie supposes that they are now taxed for the ben
eft of their ncighbors, the mechanics and manu-
! facturers. Now, sir. the question being asked,
and the answer will be decisve-were prices
ever lower! Were they ever lower to the farm
er than they are now! Is II a well founded
opinion that manufactured articles could be pro-
duccd. and brought here from England, below
/ the present rates in this country! The Senator
stated very strong case apparently-the case
ola daughter of an Illinois farmer, who was clad
in cotton cloth not worth over four or five cents
vard-and why! And why, sir! That only
advances the discussion one stage. The eyl-
dent answer to that question is because there
was no market of consumption for the grain on
her fathers farm. That is the proXmate cause.
Flour is now two dollars a barrel in Missouri
and under the repeal Of the Corn-laws we have
reason to believe that good flour al ST. Loui,
will. as a correspondent in that part of the worlC
writes me, not be above a dollar and a half I
barrel.
i Well. if the gentleman is right in supposins
that these agricultural products will rise up to
great price in consequence of any recently oc
curing event, he may hold very well TO the 9th
er opinion, that the introduction of English com
modities at such a rate as will bring them il
here in great quantities should be adopted.
can only say in respect to that, that in yIudg
ment ii is a great fallacy. | do not doubt that
the repeal ofthe corn laws may have a benetlcla
effect in extending liberal sentiments and lib
eral spirit among nations. But that it is to re
Heve the American market of the surplus grain
) | do not believe. The people of England viii
not consume more bread. England is annually
increasing her agricultural products. Agricul
ture is improving. The English Landlords arr
f improving their stock with prfusion of exPen
diture almost incredible in this country. Las
year one of these proprietors expended hun
dred thousand dollars in draining his estate IN or
der to increase the product of wheat. Ii yol
look, sir, to Pennsylvania, TO New York, TO Ma