The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-09-20

~-~~~-~-"-~-~
iiscourses:
!, these 1850 900 tons of railroad iron the the i'm
pofaon Of an equal value VI wheat or rye or pork and
beef The meat and bread consumed by the foreign Ia
who produced this iron were all Of foreign Poduc
ion instead Of being from American produce, as would
been the case had this iron been made in the United
states The mills that erected for the preparation Of
capable Of furnishing seventy thousand
annually, and the amount expended ON hese INNS IN
vania alone from eight hundred Thousand TO
one million of dolaIs all OF which, unless some change
speedily takes place, will be total loss Large impora-
Of Scotch pig iron are now made Tor the purpose oil
being bar iron, whilst our own furnaces
are daily going out OF blast
The sophism contained in the preceding extract is.
that the purchase Of 10000 tons Of foreign railroad on
if SO many tons have been imported is adead loss to the
labor Of the country Let us analyze il and what il
amount. to- must be admitted, we think, even by the
political economists OF the Newport Convention. that
these 100000 tons Of iron or the by which they
are purchased, aosre produced By Aaeean labor and
capital II they had been manufactured from own
ore and by machines, they would Of course, be
the product Of American labor and capital As they are
the manufacture of British labor and capital how were
they obainedl Most clearly By the product Of American
labor and capital They obtained in exchange for
cotton, or wheat or provisions, Or other product Of
American labor and capital. Now what is the philo-
sophca or even practical difference between producing,
by American labor and capital 100000 tons Of iron, or
purchasing with the cotton, or wheat or provisions,
also produced by American labor and capital II an
American citizen raises bale OF cotton five barrels OF
-four and exchanges for ton Of British ron is moi
his labor as much the producer OF that Of iron as il
would be if he had hammered it out on American soil
We cannot perceive either the philosophical practical
difference
We know the reply you must encourage American
labor To purchase American iron at higher rate when
the can get at cheaper rate abroad, is not
necessarily encourage American labor The fact that
it needs such aid shows that it is not proftaby employed
and should be diverted TO other employment the
wheat growers business is much better than the bust
ness OF the iron manufacturer as to enable him to be
taxed $50 on every 800 in value OF the iron which he
consumes in order to enable the latter to make iron
which he could not make without the aid OF this tax
The only shows that the labor and CAPT
tai which he employs making iron could be better and
more probably employed in growing wheat And the
result OF the argument is that in order to enable very
small portion comparatively, Of American labor to live
in business which cannot sustain itself, the great
Of American labor which is proftably employed must be
heavily taxed in order to give it the necessary support
The very principle OF protection is the taxing Of labor and
capital employed in remuneraing industry. in order to
sustain labor and capital employed in unremunerating in
pusry Ii is in theory well as in practice
We copy the following paragraph from the same wr-
ter:
Other details Of the whitening effects Of the present tariff
presented the meeting, and which really dis
PRESSING Under operation the looms for the manufac
ture OF broadcoths Of Massachusetts have been
reduced from THREE thousand less Than three hundred, and
in other States in nearly equal proportion Many Of our
der adfefent stale Of things there would be suif
Gent supply ofhese liner woods meet the home demand
The wooen interest, (nciudng the growing of the wool
aud the land required for it) it Is estimated employs
capital OF two hundred millions Of dollars The importa
ton Of wool very large ast twelve millions Of
pounds) but Il is almost entirely confined to the
qualities, such Is not produced in the United States
The average value Of the imported wool which duty
was paid was only from eigr, ten per pound
We will dispose of the and faaces OF this state
ment more summarly In the first place, is not fact
stated by the writer that the manufacture OF broad
cloths has nearly not quite ceased in Massachusetts,
We have not heard that it has materially diminished
Neither is fact that 5000 looms for the manufacture
OF broadcloth have been reduced to less than 300 We
do not believe 5000 looms employed in Mas
sachusetts in the manufacture OF broadcoth nor even
half that number. On the contrary. il is a palpable,
glarng misrepresentation will now conclusiyey
demonstrate In the statistics OF Lowell, published jan
uary 1885, il appears that the whole number OF looms
employed BY the Middesex company in weaving broad
cloth was only as. Those looms produced every week
1884 yards, little less than 6ftyiwo for each
loom. At that rate 5000 looms would produce over
100000 OF yards per annum The cloth could not be
valued at less than - per yardgvng total value OF
the broadcoth manufactured in Massachusetts Of sle
100000 per annum. Now, il appears by the volume Of
statistics published by the Massachusetts, legislature in
1915, that the choe uaiue Of cooe fabrics Of epery de-
@ripion manufactured in that State in that year was
only Ss,s77,47s Of which broadcloths were probably
not one-eghth part We venture to say that the value
Of broadco,hs manufactured in Massachusetts, have
never exceeded s3,ooo,ooo. We doubt II they have
ever cqualled half that amount And yet this writer
in the Iaegeacer has the eontey to state. that looms
enough have been stopped by the ruinous. operation
OF the present tariff, TO manufacture nearly 5000 900 OF
yards-worh in the aggregate se,ooo,ooo Its an aran
and aupendous falsehood, by whomsoever uttered and
shows clearly the nature Of the weapons by which the
present tariff is assaied They gross and palpable
manufactured by individuals who figure
at masquerade balls and who pretend be the only true
friends Of American labor-persons who wear not a
thread OF American manufacture upon their bodies
whose shirts are made OF Irish or Dutch nen and whose
coats are manufactured Of superfne French German or
English broadcoth. and who wear French gloves upon
their hands, and French boots upon their feet