The North-Carolinian., 1851-11-08
VOL. z2-N NO. GC3.
TIE TARIFF QUESTION IN A
NUTSHELL.

IVY "h 'o'eiSu COHsuOuVvs III OFUef ~
enable the producer "f a similar domestic
co"mo'Iity,to get higher price fur it than
he could otherwise obtain. No .nanufaC-
turer would desire protecting duty, ii it
were not t" produce this effect. and as this
Is self-esidcnt propositions, no proof IS
necessary for its support.
A protecting duty, then. puts money
nq lfis 81 Ihs e.ssss,s:l Saesss:;
at<a higher pricc than cOHsumets wUufsl'
have to pay for foreign yowds Of the same
kind. But this increased price. whatever
it may be. must be taken out Of the pOck-
cts OF the consumers. for It is not possible
that money can be put iuto the poe kefs "
one class. without coming out of the poek-
cts Of another.
Now. it is as plain as the nose on mans
face, that if the country is enriched BY
putting money inte the pockets Of the man.
ufaoturrrs. it is Impoverished to at least an
equal amount, by taking it out Of the pOck-
cts Of the consumers. SD that what is gain
ed OH one hand. is lost on the other. Jhe
two accounts balance each othef. and the
country, that is the whole community, is
not one farthing the gamer by the opera
ton. 10 say that the country is enriched
by the system Of protection, is as absurd
as to say that the joint concern of Peter
and Paul is enriched because some rogue
has robbed Peter to pay Paul, or, AS it
would be tor a thirsty Arab on the desert
of Zahara, to fancy that he had more water
to drink, by pouring his scanty supply from
one vessel in 0 another.
From this view Of the question. it would
appear that the country as a whole, IL it
was not on the one hand enriched by the
protective system, would not on the other,
be Impoverished by it. This would be tho
case, IT in point oi fact the gains and losses
were equal. 1t would then be a mere
roobing Of Peter to pay Paul. But the
truth Is. that a protective system robs
Peter Of two dollars whilst 1t puts only
one into the pockets Of Paul. This posi-
ton, however must be proved, and it we
can do it the question may be considered
at rest.
Let US take the case ola yard of broad
cloth. 10 import yard OF English cloth
We will suppose to cost. free OF duty, S4.
A similar yard Of equal quality cannot. we
-ss.+ ...-,-. s,1,po,v, u,.ic JtIis country,
SO as To DC sold at a fair profit, for less
than Sc TO enable the domestic manu-
facturcr. then to enter into competition
with the English manufacturers, would re-
qu're duty of So yard, SO as to bring
up the foreign to the price Of the domestic
| article.
Here we have two dollars taken from
| the pockets Of Consumer. in the fur'n Of
an Increased price. he buys the foreign
cloth, the amount goes in the public trea-
sury. If he buys the American cloth only
par, of it goes into the pockets Of the
manufacturers, and nothing into the Trea-
sury. The wi,oie cannot go into the pock-
cts Of the manufacturer, for, upon the case
supposed, it was assumed that he could
not make the cloth for 81. Il we suppose
the actual cost of manufacture to DC s.,
and the profits of the domestic Inanufac-
turer 81, it will be evident that Peter has
been robbed of two dollars in order to pay
Paul one. 1t is not eontended that this is
the exact proportion between the losses
and gains, but it is contended that in no
case where protecting duty is necessary
to sustain branch Of industry, does tho
whole increased price go into the pockets
| of the manufactures, aud it follows Of con-
sequence, that as the losses are greater than
the gains, the community asa whole, in
every case are losers.
But. it may be asked If two dollars are
taken from the puckets of Peter, and only
one goes into the pockets Of Paul, and
nothing into the Treasury, what bee cJ,nes
of the other dollar! The answer is at hand.
The one dollar j., lost in the expenses Of
manufacture. But do not operatives get
il in the form of increased wages No.
for they get no more wages than they could
earn in other pursuits. 1t is sunk in pre-
cisely the same way as a dollar would be
sunk if there were two processes Of making
an article, one which would require two
days labor, and the other one days /; and
if the maker should adopt the former in
stead Of the latter process, the difference
would be an uncompensated loss to the
public and this difference, whatever it
may be, is the measure Of one of the losses
the country sustains by a protective duty.
If the reader is satisfied with this rea SON.
ing, he will. perhaps, ask. is there another
loss than the one described, consequent
upon the imposition of protective duty
We answer yes, and one OF great amount.
1t is the loss rising from diminished de-
mand for articles to be exported owI"gto
a diminished importation oi the foreign
commodity excluded by the protective
duty. Ii we import less, we must export
less. Cause aud effect ere not more
intimately united than imports and exports.
In a series Of years the measure Of one is
tho measure OF the other. We cannot sell
# we will not buy aud il we refuse to
take sugar. molasses and rum. frOm the
West India planter. he must Of necessity
refuse to take our aour. beef. fish. and
lumber. for he has no means Of paying for
them but with sugar, molasses aud rum.-
tOrffK ,4rous.