Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-09-09
THE CAMPAIGN, No. VIII.


come now 10 one which, though not absolutely new
like some of those that we have already discussed
most gravely concerns the interests of the whole
People of the country and deserves, therefore, al
earnest and searching examination. We mean the
question of
THE PROTECTION DUE TO HOME LABOR
The Baltimore Convention has, in It's Plat
form" been by no means chary in its denunclauon;
of the System of Protection to American Industry
I'm the 4h specification of the first resolution 1t Is
charged fostering one branch OF industry to the
detrment of another :; as "chershing the Interests
OF one portion to the injury OF another portion Of
the common country !" whilst in another resolve
JAMES X. Polk and GEORGE Nj. DALLAS are glori
fed for having fulfilled the hopes Of the Demo.
cracy of the Union, amongst other things, in
/" the noble impulse given to the of free trade
by the repeal of the tariff of 1912, and the cres
ton of the more equal, honest, and productive
tariff of 1876"
We propose 10 examine how far these charges
against the Protective System true, and whether,
in fact the country has any reason to congratulate
itself on the abandonment of that system, for the
first time since the establishment of the Govern
ment, in the so much lauded act of ls46.
What was the origin Of the Protective System
For the first twenty years after the establish
ment of the Constitution, owing TO the wars in Europe
growing out Of the French Revolution, our neural
position gave large portion of the commerce Of
the world. The carrying trade--the business Of
Transporting the produce of all the colonies, not
British, 10 the European markets-gave wealth to
the cities on the Atlantic, whilst the high prices of
our own agricultural produce, growing out of these
same wars, carried improvement, comfort, and con-
tentment, through whole interior. We were
not allowed to reap this rich harvest without in
terrupton. England and France became rivals in
aggression, and we were finally involved in war
with England, happily terminated by the peace of
1915.
A new then opened upon us. Europe was
at peace. Our profitable carrying trade was over.
The colonial system was restored in all its rigor.
Europe no longer wanted our produce prices fell
so low as TO produce distress and Encouragement
amongst our farmers. Our currency was disturb
ed by the constant tendency to export the precious
metals in payment for foreign manufactures and To-
non of sgricuurists stands in dependant and false
position. Our scant supply and the exorbtant
price of foreign manufactures during the war were
matter of notoriety and comment. Our impover-
ished condition, arising outN of our whole labor be-
ing devoted 10 one pursuit. was universally felt, and
asked for remedy. Other nations were enrich
ing themselves by supplying with their manu-
features at their own prices. There was general
feeling that the good of the country required the
introduction of a system of manufactures. Presi-
dents JEFFERSON, MADISON, and MONROE, in their
addresses 10 Congress, urged this topic upon its
attention. 1t was advocated in pamphlets and
newspapers. MATHEW CAREY, of Philadelphia,
and HEzEKIAH NILES, of Baltimore, were, as our
elder readers will well remember, for many years
most conspicuous for their zeal in favor of this
system.
The first movement in this direction by Con-
eREss was in 1916. In the general revision of the
Tariff in that year, the principle OF discrimination
in the duties upon Imports, with view to the en-
couragement of our own manufactures, was dis
tinctly recognised and acted upon. 1t was most
strikingly displayed in the establishment of the
vi W CtuhS pei ydlu, dt ICdSt Ou
all manufactures Of cotton. The success of this
particular manufacture under this minimum, CON-
bned with the introduction of the power-loom and
other labor-saving machinery, gave new impulse
10 the feeling in favor of legislation with view to
promoting and introducing manufactures. This
feeling carried out in 1920 and 1924, and
reached It's maximum in the Tariff Of 1928.
This was not done without struggle, and VIC.
lent opposition. During all this period the Demo.
cratic party were greatly in the ascendency. The
question Of protection of domestic industry was
no, brought in issue between the political parties
which then divided the country. 1t was, however
essentially Democratic measure. The great De
mocratic States of Pennsylvania, New York, ant
Ohio carried all these Protective Tariffs through
Congress by great majorities-the opposition t.
them came chiefly from the commercial cities
What commerce remained TO us, after the peace o
1915, consisted chiefly in the importation Of for
eign manufactures. This was generally pro6ta
bic trade to those engaged in it. Most of the for
tunes acquired in our cities previous TO 1920 wer
acquired by houses engaged in the importation o
foreign manufactures. This interest was with lev
exceptions, opposed 10 the protective system. Tn
mos; violent opposition came from the merchant
engaged in the India trade The most valuall