The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-12-19

4 :
increased by The law securing employment them il
their new pursuits This demand OF the manufacturer
for The commodities which they is elegantly termed
the hoas market Now, sr. grant that This aItifeia
home market is dependent protection and will be de
stroyed by the prosltaton OF the protective policy IL il
very small market, though gentlemen the other side
attempt 10 magnify It's importance. SO far a. 1 am
cerned sir II shall be large they please, and the
larger the better for The purposes OF aIxumeat for
this ARTIFICIAL market Is created by compelling TO bay
from those who sell the projected commodities for which
We are Obliged 10 pay more than they worth. The
more we deal with them this more must we lose. What
they buy from must depend what buy from
them, and The greater this home market therefore, the
greater Is the loss
The gentleman from Ohio Mr. SrAsrosl said Just
now, that he wished 10 build up consuming class To
create market for the agricultural products OF The
Try. lhis IS protection with vengeance ! distin-
guished wing statesman from Maine, Mr. Evansl said
something like this eight years ago He said
that by protection the manufacturers lifted up be
consumers. II we have commodities thai wish to
sesl il Is very easy 10 create such market this We
have only 10 supply others with the money necessary
purchase them and then congratulate ourselves that
have met with sale. Such consumers OF our pToduc
ions may readily be found If We only give notice that
will ourselves furnish the money with which they
par chase them. IT.. #EN@ #.
But gentlemen say that we must build up home mar
keel, foreign nations will buy our productions
This great mistake in fact bat il no less serious
error OF principle The method adopted for creating the
home market by excluding their manufactures by
protective tariff and compelling the people to bay and sell
al home Now, this very necessity for egislatve excu
proves that could get their nuacures If this
means resorted to- How could we get them un-
less we paid for them in our productions, at least
in money! As long have either why shall we be
prevented from buying them II they will not take
productions in exchange, and we have more moAey
send them, why, them they will longer to
supply Ifihey did, we should get their goods for
nothing Depend upon it, sir, they will NOT do that, If,
then, they will not take agricultural productions,
there necessity for our resolving that we will not
take their goods for we could not gel them il we would
The prohibition, then, ii 1t has any practical operation
mschlevous--If IT has none II is absurd
The President says
Sin the third place. the destruction OF our manufactures
leaves the foreigner without any petition in market,
and he consequently raises the price Of the article here
Tor SALE as seen IN the increased cost OF iron imported
from England
Surely The President cannot suppose that the recent in
the price of iron any way connected with
the tariff OF lSI6 But lei examine his general argu-
ment The position that the destruction of our manufac.
tnresl suppose he those only that cannot he
tanned without the aid OF the government-would leave
the foreigner without any competition market and
that the price Id consequently be raised. altogether
erroneous. There is very fashionable mode OF stating
the argument upon this subject and that is by speaking
not OF foreign uiacinres, but OF the foreign manufactu
rer, as there was but one foreign manufactures in the
world. Though perhaps not designed the argument is
pressed exactly as II we had hut person competing
with manufacturers abroad, and that, in certain
contingency, he to have the monopoly of mar
kets, and 10 demand such prices as he pleased The
President seems 10 have adopted this form OF expression
He speaks OF the foreigner and OF his competition with
US, and OF our composition with him. He iorge,s tina,
there are hundreds oil thousands OF foreigners all
pellng, not only with US. bat with one another.
Suppose it was true, then, that the abolition of the
duty would either Immediately or remotely raise the price,
what would be the result Ii these foreign manuiac-
turers notwithstanding The heavy duty oil thirty forty
per cent which they pay. can compete as they do.
with our own them II they h)uld raise their prices al
ter the abolition OF the duly continue TO demand and
receive the prices before, they would add the
whole amount OF this duty to their former profits IT
their present profits excite competition abroad how much
more would that competition be stimaaied when, in
addition TO the small profits they gel, they secured
the larger profit equal to the heavy imposed
upon ihsm No man pre,ends thai the profits OF our
acuTers equal TO the duty upon the foreign
article But upon the Presidents supposon OF a rse OF
prices the profit OF the foreign manufacturers would he
greater than the duty upon the protected aftice. II,
then, this smaller profit home excnes composition
here, how much more would the greater profit abroad
stimulate competition there.
No, sir the result could not be the President sup
poses The abolition oil the duty would not be followed
by OF price. The market would not be secured To
the foreigner without competition. You would have a
active competition than before Tor the manutactu
rers ofrhe whole world would compete with one another
10 supply your wants.
This competition would be much greater than the CON-
bined competition OF foreigners and aciu
rers under the operation OF the protective system The
obvious. The high prices occasioned BY the
heavy duties diminish consumption There would be
less nun Der oil men necessary 10 supply the smaller de-
mand than would be employed supply The larger
sumption that would follow the cheaPening Of the price
There is force then. IN the argument that you dimn-
sh the number OF competitors by abolishng protective
duties had hoped that this age of the world
would have again urged The tina, the effect OF pro-
tecuon TO lower prices II this really 80, we
should still be losers for has pretended that
the price could be lowered by amount equal TO the duty
foreign goods, which, OF course, lose when
own consumed in their stead. These arguments OF
the proiectoDists imply great dsIneresteiness the
part OF manufacturers who contend for the privilege
OF buying from the home market at the highest pos
sibe price, and OF selling their goods to the cheap
est possible rate
The gentleman from Ohio Mr.. SrANrosl said this
morning that he desired protection for projections sake
The gentleman from Pennsy MIR JoSnl says, how
ever that all he wants is such incidental protection as az
be secured by revenue tariff Bot what idea has my
friend from Pennsylvania of revenue tariff : Does he
mean such will produce the hghes; amount of
revenues Is that what the gentleman meansi
MIR. JONES, OF Pennsy wanna, tio,erupting) VIVA,
meant 10 stale and dd state at the time, ihis-,bat
wanted revenue tariitbat ~, tariH adjusted FOR
enue, tina, being It's primary Object and in connexon with
that. and having that always IN view, woulo pu, the
duties upon that class of artcles-ookng upon il as
-bll-which would impose the harden Of taxes
nearly equal as possible upon the of consumers.
would adus, the duty according TO revenue stand
sideraon that we were imposing the OF
the people said that the article OF is consumed in
the by railroad and steamship companies and other
corporations, and that, IN relieving them from the pay
ment OF duty the burdens OF the government will fall
the poorer elassthe class least able 10 bear them
Mr.. MiILSON. The gentleman would mpose such
duty would raise and incidental pro-
lection. Now, say that the combination OF revenue
with protection IS moral and physical mpossibiiiy.
tarH 10 be protective must be prohibory 10 the
tent il is protective tariff gives no protection
and protective rara gives revenue.
OF course speak OF the respective operations Of the
nj Of fhct