The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-19

MYHff. w
uS,I iron would be twenty-five dollars per tor
LSsaper to the consumer, il the duty we're taken of
In the gentleman ask for higher proof than
IL II this does not satisfy the gentleman, | vii
L. his own words in proof of the fact he cali
r. He tells Us in one place, that to reduce th'
kly to twenty per cent upon iron, would ex
aguish the freS Of every furnace and every
urge 10 Pennsylvania In another place he tells us
La reciprocal free trade would be runOus to Penn
,rania, because her iron and other manufactures
r. carried on mostly by manual labor Now, SIR
Il The name Of common sense, how 10 the reduction
IN dutles to produce such mOmentOus effects upon
iron manufactures Of Pennsy lVania, If the effect
N reducing the duties would not be TO reduce the
lac to the consumer Does not this eonsidera-
IOn-thls argument Of his own-satisfy the gentle
Loo But, sir, deny that the reduction Of duties
% be attended with the consequences that the gen.
Imam suggests to the iron manufactures Of Penn
vyania deny that any necessity exists for these
fyectiye duties; and | will here show that am
rect in that conclusion. By the census Of 1870
ere were in the United States / ,599 furnaces,
oomeries, forges, and rolling-mills There were
i97 men employed In them, and in the mining
IefalIons there was $50 432, 1871 invested in those
Adjustments; there was manufactured in that
I,sr 500 365 060 worth Of their material. Now the
ynleman says that the labor is nine-te of the
II OF that material. Suppose admit for the
tke Of the argument, that each of the men EN-
,yed received for his wages and board $500 per
ssaf-which estimate | believe 10 be 25 per cent
H. Highland then add TO this price OF labor the
e-tenth estimated by the gentleman for other ex-
inses, and the gross amount would be Sl3, 543 I,
I,ung an actual profit on the capital stock OF
I2s2l $40, or over 60 per cent Will the gentle
On say that 20 per cent. proht ought not to be suf-
aent to satisfy the manufacturer Will he say
L At We ought to leglsate IN give the two thousand
banuhrturers an extra 40 per cent, to be taxed
90 the residue OF our twenty millions Of people,
The estimated value Of the iron products was the
neucan market valuation, | will give the valua
i % in the foreign ports, with FIVE dollars per ton
nled for freight. Upon that basis of valuation the
\ % products for 1910 would have been 500, 355,-
ID Aner deducting the above estimated expense
ss would still be a net profit Of s6,S42 092-a
"a. VI 49, per cent without the imposition Of one
G duty But II gentlemen are not satisfied with
use calculations, will give them yet another upon
fsrent basis. II is claimed that il ia in eonse.
lsnce oil the high price Of labor that these manu-
:.urers require protection. BY the census esti-
,gs It takes the labor Of four and a half men in
bnlng and the other empoyments in the manufac-
re OF $4,000 worth Of iron. By the same esti-
3llss II takes fifteen men to produce 81, 900 worth
each Of The mechanic arts, and twenty-three men
j produce the same amount in agriculture.
Gentlemen will not dispute this record; and can
ty unblushingly claim that those mechanics and
nulacturers, and that too, upon the ground OF the
1gh price OF labor TO the manufactured By the
fnsIs estimates, 3,7l9 95l men were employed in
guculIure, and 1851 ,2l5,960 worth Of products
ere the avalls Of their labor
Il These, sir, are the documentary estimates Of the
Dor employed in the productions OF agriculture
aye dwelt particularly upon the subject of iron and
ave shown, think, most conclusively that il needs
prOtectIon-nO discrimination in its favor
ve done so, sir, because the gentleman from Penn
yVanIa had placed IN the foreground. He claims
be particularly acquainted with its manufacture
d represented as being largely interested in it,
Is also represented being a lawyer, and is
anently qualified TO present its claims To protec-
n IN their most favorable light. With these quail.
atoms, taken In connexlon with lntemperate
al for tariff protection for manufactures, when his
- representations show most clearly that no such
hoecton Is required, such representations of his
toud have with US, as evidence, high considera-
t'n Sir, It Is beyond controversy that iron needs
other protection than that incidentally accruing
tOm revenue duties.
And, sir, each Of the other protected interests un.
the act OF 1912 requires il less than iron. In the
nuacture of woollen goods less in numbers are re
red IN gwen amount than required in the man
lcure ofiron and large proportion Of that number
females. In the manufacture of cotton goods,
Dough larger proportlonate number is required than
the manufacture Of woolen goods, yet much lare-
proportion are women. In the manufacture of eath.
/ though their raw material is much more expen.
e, and the proportionate expense of labor greater
Pan IN the other manufactures, yet memorial has
Pen sent us signed by manufacturers, respectable in
fHacter and numbers, representing that they
fqulre no extra protection. Sir, have
own that the protective policy of lS42 was
Unnecessary. That It was unnecessary was OBJ
Ous at the time of its adoption. The manufac-
es, at great expense, have got up their fair here,
1Pressy to show that they can manufacture as in
fnIousy, and more cheaply, than Europeans,
sreby proving beyond cavll that protection to
Hem was unnecessary. Mr. Webster in his speech
the agricultural fair, at Rochester, in September,
Sc43, said THAT to talk Of protection to manufac-
res was a misnomer. 1t was not what was needed
4 was agriculture that needed protection" And
n, sir, manufacturers, while showing that they
eed no protection, are peremptoriy claiming it..
Pa. Webster, in his Baltimore speech, after show
fg what would be protection to agriculture, doubted
hether It should be obtained, because it took pro-
tuon from manufacturers, In other words, pro-
clon to agriculture which needed it, should not be
fItended because it took protection frum manufac-
res, which he has admitted did not need it. By
act of 1912, even the protection of revenue du-
rs was denied TO agriculture on wool because il
las claimed to be against the interests of manufac-
res, which it is admitted, need no protection. Such,
is the consistency of this doctrine of protec-
This doctrine Of protection is not only unneces-
ery but Is mlschievous, and has visited many i'm
ortant evils and wrongs upon the people of the
0untry. The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells
that wool constitutes one-half the cost Of the
oths into which it is manufactured. The report of
eGIenham factory shows that it constituted more
an one-half the cost of the cloth. But now, under
operation Of the act of lS42, American wool
es not constitute to exceed one-ffth of the cost of
cloths manufactured here. BY the act of l842,
ooIIen goods had 40 per cent. protection, and the
Imported wool but 5 per cent. An honorable men,
tLof this House "a protcctionst from prejudice,
"a wing in principle) has shown me on this
'or samples of that imported wool, which had
aid duty Of only per cent, equal in fneness to
nree-fourths blood marine wool. BY this dis.
mnation against WOOL the manufacturers gain
anualy $4,000 and the farmers sustain the loss
that S5,O0O,000 The farmers of New York
produce about one-third of the wool of the country,
fod of course sustain one-third of the loss. The
strict which have the honor to represent, pro-
lces about one-thlrteth Of the proportion of the
a'e and, OF course, sustain about one-thrtieth OF
Ioss--a sum sufficient to pay the whole contin-
sat expenses taxed upon that district This, sir,
one OF the unjust consequences OF that law.
II is strange, sir, that il should ever have been
''med that m increase Of duties did not increase
Ioe price of goods to the consumer To question it
V PrepostCrOus and the subject il one that need no,