The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-05-14
SHADwELL, VA, May 10, 1850.

TO The Editors If the Republic.
GENTLEMEN: The cotton, wool, and iron manu-
facturers are unquestionably very much indebted
to you for the efforts which you laudably
making to place the facts connected with the tariff
question in their proper point of view before the
public.
If these facts are fully and fairly presented to,
and understood by the people, il does seem to
me that there is not single individual in the Uni
ted States who ought to doubt, or could for mo-
ment nationally doubt that the true policy Of this
country is to protect our industry against the
consequences of competition SO unequal as that
Of the pauper labor ofEurope. The difference in the
cost of manufacturing labor in Europe, or in Eng
land at least, and that of this country, is generally
admitted to be from 35 to 40 per cent; and, if so.
how is il possible for the manufacturers Of this
try to bear up under such difference without ade
quate protection?
IL is argued, by those who oppose the protective
policy, that the agricultural interest would be inju
riousy affected by afIording such adequate protec
ton, inasmuch the greater cheapness Of labor in
Europe, il is commended, enables the European
manufacturer TO sell his goods much cheaper than
he otherwise could and that the low prico Of such
goods imported into this country, and coming in
competition with our domestic fabrics, tends TO
keep down the pricos Of both, TO the advantage of
the agriculturist or consumer.
Again, il is said that the importation of goods
from England causes large expectations Of grain
breadstuffs, and other agricultural products,
from this country TO that in return for such goods,
without which such market for them would not
exist, or its benefit be lost 10 this country. These
the arguments used in favor Of free trade and
against the protective systematic fallacy Of which
nothing can be easy than 10 detect, as we will
presently cndcavor 10 show,
|. In the first place, il may be remarked that,
although the difference Of thirty five TO forty per
cent in the cost Of man iacturing in England and
in this country may enable the English manufac
turer TO undcrsell the manufacturer of this coun-
try, and by competition TO bring down goods to a
very low rate Chat is say, in the absence Of any
protection wbatever) yet the least reflection, il
must obviously appear that such course of policy
II adopted, would prove 10 be utterly disas-
trous To the interest OF the agrculturist IL would
be ruinous to the manufacturer; for this-tha with
indifference before mentioned Of thirty five 10 forty
percent in favor ofthe foreign and against the home
manufacturer the latter would be compelled 10
discontinue his operations, and the whole manu-.
featuring system Of tho country would thereby be-
come totally and inevitably Frustrated. And what
then would be the results First the total dcstruc-
ton fthc home market for the agricultural products
ofthecountry, createdby the present manufacturing
system in feeding its operatives, which cannot but
be regarded as Of great value; secondly, the de-
struction Of any competition between home and
foreign manufacturing system, and thereby lcav-
ing the Agricultural to the mercilcss cupidity of
the foreign manufacturer, who might then exact
any amount Of price on foreign manufactured arti-
cles that he might choose, and thereby the diver
sion Of all tho labor now employed in manufsctur-
ing operations to tiling the SOIL and thus greatly
augmcnting the surplus Of our agricultural pro.
ducts.
2. And what, itmay be asked, has the free ira
der toocr throw into the scale
against all these disastrous results9 Nothing but
the mere fanciful whimsical idea that we are 10
be compensated, and more than compensated, aye,
greatly benefited, by the market which England
will afford for our agricultural products. Now, Il
England was only or chiefly manufacturing