New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-07-12

on the South, the breaking up of the cot
ton monopoly would be the best thing that
possibly could happen for that section. We
suppose that even The Republic will not de-
nv the economical principles or the facts by
which this conclusion is sustained, though
it NAV affect TO deny the conclusion itself
Nor is it matter Of any consequence to
the argument. that great deal OF the labor
now employed in producing cotton can be
proftably engaged in raising flax or some
other staple. That is not the point. The
point is, that whereas certain districts have
virtual monopoly in the growth OF cotton,
none can have 4 monopoly IN growing lax.
If that should become the common material
for the clothing now made Of cotton, every
part of the temperate zone would be able to
supply, or nearly supply, its own demand.
Besides, the United States might enter upon
the new manufacture on terms of compare
tive equality with other nations, at the same
time that the removal of the cotton monopo-
" would have removed the backbone of the
British Free Trade party in this country,
and that kind and degree of Protection
which are so seriously needed would be es-
tablished without any considerable opposi
ton.
The Republic may thus understand that IN
favorino the Flax-Cotton Revolution, The
Tribune is not only not attacking the cause
of American industry and independence, but
seeking to erect those interests upon broad
and immovable foundation not sustaining the
monopoly now exercised by British maniac
turers and merchants, but aiming at that
monopoly a fatal and final blow.
But, exclaims this sagacious contemporary,
there are already millions on millions of
American capital placed in cotton factories,
and the people of Vermont are largely en-
gagged in producing wool. Would you
sacrifice those great vested interests
What treason what insanity
To this bit of nonsense we reply, that
science has not generally paid much regard
TO the sacredness of vested interests, or to the
amount of capital imperilled by her progress.
! If new discovery or invention is brought
forward which promises benefit to the ma
ton and to mankind, we shall not suppress
it nor oppose it because Mr.. A. or Mr.. b.
will be loser by its coming into general
use. There are to be sure others who
will do this,-who will seek to block up the
railroad and cut the telegraph wires lest
vested interests should suffer by their sue
cess, but such has never been nor ever will
be our course Hitherto that sort of blind
ness and stupidity has been without re-
spectacle advocate it now has one in The
Republic.
And forsooth, it is because we advocate a
! piv,ccu,c tdrif tnat we ought to be on the
side of the snail and the bat, and against all
inventions that threaten "vested interests"
There seems to be a radical difference be-
tween our view of Protection and that of
our contemporary. With us it is matter of
principle, not of regard to persons, firms or
corporations. We would have a tariff not
by any means for the special advantage of
Boston or Mobile, but to build up American
Industry and make the country ndepend-
ent-not particularly to give employment to
the spinners of Lowell or the wool growers
of Vermont, but to give real and better-paid
employment to the whole land, diversity its
labor, and develop its resources. That be-
ing the case, we should never refuse to ac-
cept and help introduce an invention, which
promised to favor this great general result,
because it might be attended with some
temporary, local Inconvenience in Massa-
chusetts, on the Green Hills, or along the
shores of the Mississippi.
If this is to war upon American interests
and to league with the enemies OF our coun-
/ try, we make the war and are guilty of the
treason To our astute contemporary be the
credit of discovering and denouncing such
crime.
Who Owns San Juan