The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-15

Of manufactured goods. hold this authentic table
up for the examination OF members and the inspec-
ZION Of the people. II is worthy Of stsdy and ma
ture reflection But what process has this mighty
result been accomplished Who purtured, who
now sustains this manufacturing mammoth By
what means either direct or ind ect were they en-
ahled, with so few hands, TO make such vast
sum as s57 1924 053 Of manufactures in one year,
Then look at the great profit made by those engaged
| in the fisheries. Here we find 10 244 hands EN-
ployed, with a capital invested Of Si3 044 $50, and
making in value sll 1855, 30i. This, too, is a
protected interest Let the agricuurists study these
facts, and they must come TO the conclusion that
some powerful agent wes brought to bear to swell
| the value Of the productions Of Massachusetts,,
BESIDES her own labor, machinery, and capital. 1t
is mmatersl what way you estimate the cost Of the
raw materials used in manufacturing, the interest
upon the capital invested, and the wages OF labor;
upon any just and fair mode Of computing them, the
profits will be astounding. As compared with the
interest that the great mass Of the agricultursts
now receive on their capital and labor the manufac-
turers must, matters now stand 10 Massachusetts,
triple or quadruple them. They may institute the
comparison between any ofthe great manufacturing
and planting, or farming States, and il will he
shown that the States Of Massachusetts, New York.
or Pennsylvania, not only get all the benefit 10
be derived by having their manufactures protected
but also about nearly all the advantage Of the boast
ed home market, which they urge the encouragement
Of m manufactures affords To the farmers.
As for the few hundred bales Of cotton taken
from the South, that is favor; for if you will only
iberate commerce from lis undue restrictions
the rise in their cotton would return them double the
profit. ....... r.r.
We are opposed TO tho tariff act Of 1912 because
Congress can grant no protection 10 manufactures,
except by the exercise Of the taring power. No
one, il is deemed would have the hardihood TO adj
vocate a system of direct taraiion with view to
raise money protect the manufacturers, by grant
ipO han ho,,n la ha
proposed and passed, would any one say that the
manufacturers should be solely and privately in.
trusted with the collection and disbursement Of the
direct tax thus imposed by Congress for their bene-
6t that these recipients Of public bounty should
collect the direct tax and divide il amongst them
selves, and the government neither know the
amount nor look to the disbursement All would
condemn such a system. Yet virtually, that is the
effect Of the existing law, with the single exception
that the tax Is imposed indirectly, and the
manufacturers the great odum as well as trouble
which the direct system Of taxation and bounties
just indicated would require Of having maoufac-
turers' tax-gatherers harassing the country TO
collect the money out OF which they were to pay
themselves the bounties. The system Of afording
Indirect bounties by Congress is not only more
convenient of collection, but is more difficult to
limit as to extent, and far less odious only because
less ineligible. For exactly as the value Of Amer
lean manufactures more nearly approximate TO fur
nlshing the home consumption, so much the greater
ia the aggregate indirect tax in the shape Of en-
HANGED price, which the consumers have to pay;
and for the same reason, our home manufactures
increase and supply the home market, protective
duty upon imports puts into the treasury less and
less revenue, while the manufacturers get larger
and larger bounty; because, you increase the
quantity and value of their goods, you extend the
base upon which protective duties operate to
nance these profits, and as you diminish by this
process the importations, you cut down the source
Of revenue. But wish TO know what right has
this government to lay taxes avowedly to foster
manufactures, without seeing to the collecting and
disbursng Of theni Is not the power Of taxation
the most powerful trust conferred upon govern
ment' Is not the government responsible for its
exercise of the taxing power And will any one
say we have the right to delegate to others the
power of collecting and appropriating to their
the public revenue toithout accounting for IL
The protection given by the bill of 1912 to manu-
facturers affords them bounties clearly in the
shape Of enhanced prices, as if Congress had i'm.
posed direct tax upon the people, collected and
distributed il out amongst them. To deny this is
to affirm that the proiecipe tariff does not confer any
benefit. But il it confers benefit, 1t is only by
excluding from our markets the foreign cheap
goods else by sustaining the price Of American
goods. So, therefore, whatever benefit it confers,
comes through the agency Of Congress in exercising
the tariag potper and their being the recipients of
the bounty, or else no benefit whatever is conferred;
and if so, protective tariff is of no advantage TO
and conclusion is erroneous, the vehement and elo
quent appeals made by members this floor de-
pcting the rninous consequences that would result
TO them by passing the bill now under consdera-
ton as substitute for the act of 1912, and mplo-
ring us in the most persuasive manner, and exhib-
ting the gre loss they would sustain by the tnh
in the price of their manufacturesaIl 60 70 prove,
in the most rrefragabe manner, that they do derive
much greater profits no,o, than they would ,oiihom
protection. In contendmg for protection, the man
ufacturers will not stultify themselves by denying
that it does augment their profits For il 1t confers
no advantage on them and we clearly prove that 1t
mpoverishes all other parts of the country, it is
more than folly nay, sir, II is criminal, to persist IN
such policy. Bat the struggles of the manufac-
turing interests this hoor--the condition of
these districts compared with the agricultural
prove conclusivey that they gain greatly, while
the balance Of the community lose equally as much
and perhaps much more. But as it was not my
intention to expand my views upon this branch of
the subject will, for the sake of illustrating my
position enumeraie few Of the protected articles;
stating the value of those manufacture, as well
as Of those we import; and show to what extent
the community is taxed for the benefit of the man
ufacturers . a....
The aggregate value of only four leading articles,
embracing woolens, cotions, iron, and maDuiac-
lures Of iron, shoes, boots, and other manufactures
Of leather, made in the United States, as estimate
in the census Of 1640 ia Sl67 669, 1853, These
same articles are doubtless of much greater value
now The facts stated will justify us in estimating
the value at present, Of all the articles protected
by the act of 1872 at fully $3.50 100000. From an
estimate made from Doc. No. 2i0 81 session OF The
9th Congress, the aggregate average annual value
Of the manufactures of wool, cotton, iron and man
ufactures Of iron, and Shoes boots and other man
ufactures Of leather, imported, from 1887 to 1910,
was only s3l 2O7 1873. But since the passage ofthe
high tariff of lS42 there has been falling of IN the
importation Of these four articles IL will be lib-
i r IL. A. 40 fh.f nj
our present importations, only about $50, 900 600
in amount came in competition with our American
manufactures. As upon nearly all the protected
articles the duty is very high, will place the duty
act Of lSi2 imposes protective duty Of forty per
cent on the s50000,0 600 of imports coming in COM
! petition with our manufactures. As the duty in
creases the price OF the imported article il the Amer
lean market greatly above what It sells for IN the
foreign, we contend that this protectve duty OF 40
per cent equally olevstes the price Of the American
article of similar description, which the high duties
were designed protect. But VIC will suppose the