New-York daily tribune., 1851-07-15
Who pay. the Dufy ?

who PAYS the Duty-the Producer or the I on
sumer'" was very well pleased with the most OF
the reasoning which il contained. but am not ready
by any means, TO subscribe TO the whole. In regard
TO one point In particular, think ne has been guilty
OF sophstry. In speaking Of iron, he says
"Were We 10 abolish all protection, closing the fur
naces at once instead Of doing II by degrees. we
are now doing It would be necessary TO import al
least O00 eco tuns TO enable Us 10 consume as much
per head as we did IN lsi6-T. Al what price could
that quantity be supplied Certainly not less than
flO per tun: and the cost delivered here, duty
free would not be less than 500. Inc aooAtlon o.
all duty would thus inevitably raise the price. be-
cause II would diminish the general supply. Were
we on the contrary, 10 raise the duty 70 $50, the
prlce could not above $50, because every fur-
mace In the country would be reopenet, and We gen.
era supply would be largely increased the enect OF
which would be TO cause dlmlnuuon OF prices IN
foreign markets even below their present point for
while competition Is maintained, the foreign producer
must pay the duty
Ether the logic embodied IN the above extract IS
incorrect, or else II Is profound as 10 be enurely
beyond my comprehension. Why the manufacturer
Of IRON should Qut the business. on the abonuon oi
all protection, when the prospect IS tha that article
Will rise from 5000 500 per un, Is question IN 20
htical economy which am unable TO unrayel let
We have the authors word that such an efect Will
follow The manufacturer can produce iron IN
abundance, under the present tarlf al S9O per tVn
but let that be repealed and 500 viii no longer pay
them. but ruin and swift destruction follow close
upon 1t. Let people theorlze as much as they please
capitalists are not so blind as ioquii business whcn
that IT would pay twenty per cent more II tne
tariff was completely done away
| think the author saw that his remarks were ca
pabe of a reductio al abSurdum, and accordingly ne
attempts TO patch them up by ntlmailng, that there
would be such complete destruction OF the manu-
featuring interest, (OccdSiOned by IRON selling at ten
dollars tun than It had done before suppose
that the business could not Afterwards be started
Nonsense. IL is not within the possibilities for "the
universal Yankee nation" to remain idle and alo"
strangers TO sell III markets, at hlgh prices,
goods which We ourselves can produce IL such
should be the case, though the complete destruction
which the author oreseeS had fallen upon our man,
u(acures the sound OF the loom and the anvil would
forthwith be heard and the furnace and manuiacto-
res would rise from their ashes IKE the rhdhik OF
old. 90 not think the author latended 10 say lhd'
there would be an entire destruction of the capital en-
ployed in manufactures, II he did so intend that
he believed II. In the extract have quoted ABOVE
he says
not raise above $50 because erry furnace the country
wouid bereopened," &c. Again he says " When the
furnace master has been ruined. and ms furnaces
have been transferred by the hands OF the sheri tne
power no longer remains to reopen This is blow
ing hot and blowing cold at the same time. IL Woulu
have been better to have SAID that the furnaces
would be destroyed, or tha they wouiu NOT; anu hoI
both for the reader knows not which 10 believe
will confess that the above reasoning has not yet
converted me to a tariff man. STILL II may De thal
tariff OF some kind is very necessary IL may oe that
the question involved can be satisfactorily explained
If So should be extremely glad 70 have 1t done. II
| see the fan of So | shall probably vote for
some one who II will be will depend IN great meas
ure upon the conclusion at which my mind arrives
on this and some few other questions OF similar I'M
portance. Most respectfully yours, Wv
The above is professedly from friend of
the system which looks to the protection of
American labor, but it is so fair a specimen
of the sort of reasoning of the men who re-
pudiate the doctrines of Adam Smith and
vet call themselves free traders, that we are
disposed to regard it as an emanation from
their school, and as such it is that we lay 1t
before our readers. In so doing, we pur-
sue course directly the reverse OF that
universally followed by those who advocate
the adoption in this country of the policy
that has ruined Ireland and India andis now
depopulating both, and who look to the
maintenance of the English monopoly of ma
chinery for the production of cloth and iron
as the only means of establishing freedom OF
trade In their own estimation they are the
most logical of reasoners, and have all the
science on their side, yet do they deem II
both inexpedient and unsafe to permit their
readers to see more than one side OF the
question, and therefore il is that not only do
they never happen, even by accident 10
make fair representation of the views OF
their opponents, but they carefully exclude
those opponents from all opportunity OF
speaking for themselves through their col
umns-whereas. Of all the advocates OF pro-
lection as the speedy and profitable, ana H-
deed the only mans of reaching perfect
freedom Of trade, We know of no single one
that weuld fear TO grant the use Of his col
umns to his opponents on the simple condi-
tion that the latter would reciprocate, and
thus enable their readers TO see both sides OF
this great question and Judge for themselves.
The views taken in the article here re-
ferred TO are as follows:
F,rst-That the total abolition of the duty
on iron would at once sink the price 10 3
point Sc low as in a short time TO close the
remaining furnaces of the Mon.
Second-That the consequence of this
reduction of duty would be diminution of
supply in the general market OF the world
to the extent of our capacity TO furnish
iron, which was, in ls47, no less than
500, 900 tuns.
Thrd-That this diminution of supply
would be followed necessarily and certainly
by rise of price, enabling the foreign man
uiacturer to indemnify himself for the losses
Of the past few years Of competition with
our furnaces and rolhng-mills.
OF the truth of this not even the Journa'
Of Commerce could express doubt, deyo-
ted as IL is 10 the maintenance ofthe British