Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1848-06-15
(Concluded.)

AdIllI dllu TC6 IIuut,
(Concluded.)
In the Freeman of April 6, A. II. B. says, They
1.-THE RICH regulate the price of labor They give just
what they please, and the poor man has the option to
work or starve, and sometimes to work and starve.
They make profit enough out of the poor mans labor
to support themselves in luxury and grow richer into
the bargain. If they paid him Just compensation it
would be utterly impossible to grow any richer by this
means, while the poor could be no longer poor"
Are the facts in this extract stated to show the ope-
ration of Tariff? And is the doctrine here affirmed
correct? Does Tariff in this country of immune
rabe fields for labor" tie poor men up to a choice be-
tween starving and working for just what rich men
please to give them? Ifthe facts are true at ALL they
are the most so under system of Free Trade which
restricts the fields of labor As to the doctrine of the
extract, will A. H. B. seriously maintain that when
man has large estate requiring many hands, he ought
to pay them in such manner that they may grow rich
but not himself? Is the owner Of factory the only
one who may not share in its profits? Surely the
statements of the extract needs either proof or explain
alton.
A. H, b. says, When an article is imported and
pays duties, the price is raised the same as the duty
but, if the article is also produced and sold at
home, the Tariff raises the price in the same ratio"
Would it not be more correct to say the Tariff restores
the price to its natural point of elevation? How can
Tariff raise the price of home article, unless the
price othat article has first been kept down by foreign
competition? Now, would not have home produc-
ton discouraged and the producer injured by com
petition which reduces prices below reasonable point
If rich foreigner, by hiring laborers for just enough
to keep them from starving, send goods here cheap
err than honest producers can afford hem let us have
protection. On the other hand if the scarcity of a
home article tempt the producer TO demand extra
VACANT price, let foreign supply be admitted under
such regulations as will put the price down to the
point of fairness Why, is it not better for nations as
well as families to do their own producing, as far as
their ability extends?
A. H. B. thinks that when Tariff raises the price
of article, the producer gets it. Well, if this is
true is it not lust as it should bc Producers and not
oilers should get the benefit of protection Ifthe pro-
Queer gets the high price, the consumer pays it. And
if the consumer does not produce at the same time he
pays the high price of produce without enjoying the
consequent high price of labor Hence protection is
against his interest And this explains the collision
between the North and the South upon the subject of
Tariffs The industry, and of course the benefit of
protection, is chiefly in the North The South want
Tariff that will defray the expenses of government
and prevent their slaves from being taxed but they
have comparatively little interest in protection They
regard it as favorng the North at the expense of the
South. And this is a thing of course since idle con-
sumers must pay the high price of protected articles
without receiving any corresponding benefit in return
Now, as fuctuation is destructive Of industrial in
terests, protection should be permanent in order to
be beneficial, and slavery is the great enemy of
protection, constantly seeking its overthrow confess
do not much value protection under slave rule So
long as slavery is the dominant interest of the coun-
try, and have protection only by its consent,
think it best first to seek the overthrow of slavery and
then take care of protection. There are shareholders
who favor protection. admire the suicidal policy of
those who, for the sake of protection would put them
at the head of the nation and thus seek protection by
process which strengthens its great enemy This
is like getting crop by method that ruins the soil.
Further, cannot defend Tariff that protects s!aue
produce. When such produce is protected, it is not
the PRODUCER but the oppressor that gets the benefit
and the protection is in effect bounty in favor of
oppression The advocates of Tariffs would all turn
Aboitonsts sooner than suffer what they thoughtess-
ly infct the slave by favorng protection without
discriminating between free and slave labor 1t is a
monsrous abuse of protection to make it enrich the
idIer and crush the aborer
A. H. B. while going against all Tariffs and advo-
eating Free Trade, takes no notice of the fact that
when exchanges of produce between two countries
are unequal in value, country suffers drain of
its specie and the loss of its currency, while the other
is liable to redundancy of money. Free Trade be-
comes restricted by its own operation when it has
drained away from a country its currency. Why, is
it not better to impose the restriction in time to pre-
vent the drain and its consequences? Our own coun-
try has several times suffered from drain of its spe
Gle, and, if we may trust the statements of Mr. Walk
er, are now exposed to the opposite evil of redund-
ancy.
To conclude, while | would prefer direct taxation
to revenue Tariff imposed for the purpose Of throw
ing the shareholders burdens on other men, contend
for such protection will secure to every man, black
or white the avails of his own skill and his own labor
s.
P.S-Snce writing the above l have finished read
ing the last annual report of the Secretary of the Trea
sury on the state of the national finances II the facts
of that report are true, and its reasonings sound
they 90 far in favor of Free Trade Yet see nothing
in the report to satisfy that home manufactures
ought not to be protected when they are kept down
by foreign competition. Should it, however, appear