Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1846-01-16

course Of this administration in the check
their policy will give to competition and
new investments of capital, while the poor
Iaborer" and the farmer will be the only
sufferers by il.
| submit to every man Impractical com.
mon sense, whether such must not be the re-.
suit. And yet we are gravely told by both
the message and the report that proteetiUs
duties operate exclusively for the benefit Of
the rich capitalists. al the expense Of the
poor laborer aud the farmer ~
But finally, this whole question, so inter-
esting to the American people, turns upon
a simple question Of fact: "Do protectiuc
duties ultimately increase or reduce the pri.
ces of the articles on which they are levied Z"
Now, the message and the report assume
(hut fail to prove in single instance) that
protective duties have increased prices, ard
are therefore oppressive and burdenso,ne ;
while, on the other hand, he asserted and
vas ready 10 prove, by the documents re-.
ferred to, by every price current and every
merchant in the country, that the prices Of
protected goods have been reduced by com.
petition since the odious minimums aud spe.
cific duties were first imposed for protection
in 1916 to one-half, one third, one. fourth,
and in some instances to one.six,h part Of
what they were at that time, as in the case
of coarse c0ttons, glass, iron. nails, &c.;
yet, in the face of these undeniable facts, il
is asserted tina, the duty (ninc cents a yard
-150 per cent? is added 10 the price Of do.
nestle AS well as imported goods, and is pad
by the consumer, and that the q" poor man"
is thus taxed on his coarse cotton goods 90
per cent, more than the rich; when the fact
is admitted that the poor man now gets a
better article made at home, and paid for in
labor or produce. at about one fourth Of
the price he paid in eighteen hundred e. six.
teen, when the minimum duties were fist
imposed; while on the other hand, the wa.
yes Of labor and the produce of the farmer,
flour, grain, meat, &C., have undergone lit.
tie or no reduction of price, owing 10 the
increased demand produced by the increase
of manufactures. Such has been the effect
of protective duties. But reuenue duties,
levied on articles not produced or manuiac-
tured at home, may, and do generally in.
crease prices, because they do not produce
competition and increased supply. But to
the facts. | call upon the President and
Secretary for their proofs. Show me the
! evidence that in single instance protective
duties have permanently increased prices.
This you assert, and deny. This is an
issue Of fact, and not of argument. Produce
then, your evidence that protectiUe DUTIES
have permanently increased prices, and
then 60 on and denounce protection as plum.
der. robbery, and oppression. But first
prove your facts, and then make your areu.
meni. ask the Secretary as lawyer,
would any court in Chrstendom tolerate for
Il moment the course that yon pursue You
bring a suit against A. who denies your
claim; are you at liberty to assume the
facts without proof, to be just as you want
them, and then make your speech, and ask
a verdict! Surely not. Yet such is tho
course pursued on this great question. You
assume, without proof, tina! protective duties
increase prices, and then contend that the
"poor man" and the farmers are oppressed
and plundered by the tarfl. Now. If this
be found to be untrue in point of fact, and
that the reverse is true, that they reduce
prices, and of course lessen burdens, then
what becomes Of all your arguments and
speeches against the expressions Of The tar.
ifl They fall lif.less to the ground.
lie denied the right Of the enemies Of the
tariff Ia assume these facts and called nm them
for the proof. The facts lie AZ the fo,nd.,ior
of the whole question. and he trus,ed thew ~ m
be furnished.
The President and Secre,arv Tell n. ,h.v
want n revenue tariff-a tariff that will ;nct
Weld revenue enough to meet expenditures and
no more. Well, according to their own show.
iDy,.the present tariff is The ,erv thing thew
want They tell us officially that the expend,.
lures this year have been 500, 965. 2O7. and The
revenue has been 800 100, l33. Now is il pos.
sbe to get the tariff nearer right than il in !
Why, Then, disturb or change il, when. accord.
ing to their own theory, It is exactly right !
Last session we we're threatened with large
surplus, and were then told we must "reduce
the tariff TO reduce the revenue" Now.we
are TOLD we mus, "reGuce the tariff to increase
the revenue. So, whether there was too much
or TOO little, the remedy was always the same
-" reduce the tarf-reduce the tariff" Doe.
tor Sangrados cure Tor all things bleeding
and warm water" 4 laugh
Bat We are told BY the Secretary that tho
manufacturers are all making immense profits
30 or 80 per cent. But can this be possib'e
Is not capital free every where and will il
work for or 5 per cent. at agriculture, 40 10
alleged, when, by going into manufactures. il
could realize 20 or 30! II this we're true, the
rush Of capital into manufactures would soon be
80 great as to reduce II Ia the very lowest rates
OF pro6'. But II the manufacturers supply goods
at one fourth of their former cost, and still make