North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1852, 1851-11-19

The TARIFF QUESTION A NUTSHELL. What is
called protection, is putting duty foreign commo-
dity, in order to enable the producer of similar do
nestle commodity, to get higher price for than he
could otherwise obtain. No manufacturer would de-
sire protecting duty, if it produce this
effect, and as this is selEevident proposition
proof is necessary for its support.
protecting duty, then, puts money into the pock-
cts OF the protected classes by enabling them sell
their commodities at higher price than consumers
would have to pay for foreign goods of the kind
But this Increased price, whatever it may be,
be taken cut of the pockets of the consumers for it
is not possible that money be put into the pock
cts of class, without coming out Of the pockets
of another.
Now, it is as plain as the nose on mans face,
that if the country is enriched by putting money in
to the pockets of the manufacturers, it is mpover-
shed to at east an equal amount, by taking it out OF
the pockets of the consumers that what is gained
ed on one hand is lost on the other. The two
counts balance each other, and the country, that is
the whole community. is not farhing the gamer
by the operation. To say that the country is en-
rched by the system of protection, is absurd as
to say that the joint concern of Peter and Paul is
rched because some rogue has robbed Peter to pay
Paul. or, as it would be for thirsty Arab the
desert OF Zahara, to fancy that he had 20
drink, by pouring his scany supply from one vessel
into another.
From this view Of the question, it would appear
that the country as whole. if it was not the
hand enriched by the protective system, would not
the other be impoverished by it. This would be the
case, if in point of fact the gains and losses
equal. 1t would then be mere robbing of Peter to
pay Paul. But the truth is, that protective system
robs Peter of two dollars whilst 1t puts only one into
the pockets of Paul. This position, however, must
be proved, and if do it the question may be
considered at rest.
Let take the case of yard of broadcloth. To
import yard of English cloth will suppose to
cost, free of duty, 81 similar yard of equal qua
lty cannot, we will also suppose, be made in this
country be sold at fair profit, for less than
SO. To enable the domestic manufacturer, then, to
enter into competition with the English manufactu-
rer, would require duty Of 80 per yard, to
bring up the foreign to the price of the domestic art
Gle.
Here we have two dollars taken from the pockets
of consumer, in the form of increased price. If
he buys the foreign cloth. the amount goes in the
public treasury. If he buys the American cloth only
rer, and nothing into the Treasury. The whole
not 60 into the pockets of the manufacturer for, upon
make the cloth for 81. If we suppose the actual cost
of manufacturer to be SIS, and the profits of the do
nestle 81, it will be evident that Peter
has been robbed of two dollars in order pay Paul
one. 1t is not contended that this is the exact pro-
portion between the losses and gains, but it is
tended that in where protecting duty is
essary tosusain branch of industry, does the whole
increased price go into the pockets of the manufactu-
and follows of consequence, that the losses
are greater than the gains, the community a
WHOLE in every are losers.
But, it may be asked, If two dollars taken from
the pockets of Peter, and only goes into the |
pockets Of Paul. and nothing into the Treasury, what
becomes Of the other dollar =? The answer is at !
hand The dollar is lost in the expenses of manu-
facture But do not operatives get it in the form of
increased wages? No, for they get no more wages
than they could in other pursuits 1t is sunk in
precisely the same way dollar would be sunk if |
there 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
instead of the latter process the difference would be
uncompensated loss TO the Public and this dife-
renee, whatever it may be, is the measure of of
the losses the country sustains by protective duty
- Norfolk Argus.