Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1849-01-11
CORRESPONDENCE,
TARIFF AND FREE TRADE.
NrllgER 9


duce all the wealth of the country"-can be rec
onciled with the assertion that wealth produces
wealth"
Answer,--ln the last phrase, "producer' was
used in different sense. According to the die
tionary one definition of the word PRODUCER is
"gain." Gain is defined to be "proft advan-
tage." Hence, the "producc' of wealth is its
" gain," >" profit" or advantage" Am un.
derstood now?
1t may be proper to say that this expression
occurs III a communication written more than
two months prior to tie one in which the other
.occurs-that it was used, in enumerating few
Of the advantages which the rich have owe. cee
poor, to show that there is no justice in lg
poor man pay poll Or other tax equal e
rich. If | had not aimed at brevity might han
numbered in scl eral other words to guard againt
bubbles. But | thought the meaning could not
be mistaken. Nor is the first quotation above
unjust to the rich who labor with their hands,
The number of such is not great enough to form
more than an exception to the rule. willingly
accredit them for what they produce in this way.
The term rich is vogue. Few will call them
selves rich Most will call themselves poor
But this is mere play upon words.
Inc last specification Of mace ,,rooun e ooncb
cd IN the following words--~Thus he DISPOSE.
' o. one o. my aFgqT rnts by denying that free
'''u0 0''i mad an existence, and then of the 9th.
IT 0y asserting that free trade always existod.Y!
did neither. What bunder.
This is his " naccuracy," arising from "his
habit Of continuing tariff and free trade" |
had observed that S. with many others, were u.s.
ing the latter term in loose, indefinite sense
entirely foreign to the meaning. I therefore
took care to explain how used the term, NV
position required" that should make distinc.
ton" between tariff" and "free trade" "His
position is best Sustained by confounding" the
two. Had he attended to the distinction as
explained it, see not how he could honestly
bring This charge Of inconsistency. repeat
when | use the term " free trade, always "mear
no kind cfa taIIG" said | did mol know tina
free trade ever had trial.
S. drew picture of the evils resulting from
free trade. In reply showed him that what he
called free trade was precisely the tariff system
which is, and has been, in existence from tune
immemorial-whichh had produced Just such con
sequences as he prophesied of free trade ant
had power to prevent lhem.-In short, thai
his free trade fancy was a tariff in reality; and
that a tariff which did not admit of lust such
competition between foreign and domestic arti-
Giles, as he there describes, would not stand q
moment. Thus it will be seen that his CHARGE
of inaccuracy is like the saddle on the wrong
horse.
now come to his last charge, to wt:-"Ht
clouds and perpleXes the question, Iquere, 70
question lead mel by habit Of confoandinG
things that+ distinct"
may be guilty of this charge, but not in the
points he has specified, as | shall show. re
make out this part of the case, he first denies
my assertion that the principle of tariff taxation
is the same every where" and atfirms that the
corn laws Of Great Britain are different from
such tariffs as he defends"
But what is the principle of tariff taxation P
by "prnciplc," we understand the element,
the "Origtat course" the "ground of action,
which constitutes" Settles" establishes o
Composes' anything. Now take the term" tar
if taxation and DEFY any man to show that it
" element" its Origliq! cauSe," or its groun,
Of action is not the same everywhere. Take tn,
"corn laws which he holds up in strong relic
as different in principle from American protec
ton. They are but an item of tariff taxation
and are precisely similar to our tariff tax Of
wool, or tobacco, OF cotton, or sugar, or variou
other items that might be named. Their aim i
the same; to wit to enrich the surplus produc
er as have pointed out in previous remarks
and to furnish Government with revenue
To throw doubt on my argument S. has intro
duced two complaints, for which thank him.
First, the fire which burns his neighbours hous
is bad, though the same in principle as the fir
which warns lis room and cooks his dinner
True. But the reason Why it is chad" in on
case and "good" in another is evident. Cir
Is good" servant but bad Muster Fire i
good" so long as it is adopted to good" pur
pose and kept from doing harm. Shall we sa
that because fire can be sometimes controle
for useful purposes we have a right to kindle
in our neighbors fences, forests or building,
where it may run rioting in destruction? No,
where s. will show Inc plan of tariff "protec
ton" which can be in operation and kept andc
control, so as to harm no one; he will sho,
what believe never did, will or can exist. Br
in the mean time object to his setting fire
my barn to destroy rats, lest he should burn tn
barn.
Second, I" Food which is uEwholesome to SON
may be excellent nourshment to others" Goo
And because IL ~ unwhoesome to some | oil
iect to the doctrine that this food must be Gran
med down the threats of the sick, to whom it
positively injurious. In other words, | object
his forcing tariff upon those who do not want
who do not need it, and who are injured by
simply because it may operate for the benefit
others.
s. makes another very egregios bunder at n
expense in the following statement: 1" He told
in The Freeman of March Cd, that capitals
would not manufacture or cultivate raw materi
without tariff" This is news neither sa
or thought this nor does the language imp
or admit of such an influence. Have ca
friend S. how you read. l said" unless t
prices of articles are raised by tariff, no prote
ton or encouragement would be afforded BY
to induce capitalists to manufacture and cul
vate the raw material for SALE" at" refers
ufarifD