New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-10
THEOLOGY on COAL.

utterances we have often been moved to
commend, avows its Editors devotion to
Free Trade, and illustrates it as follows:
just now we are strongly tempted to 90 for the
peal of the tax Coal The rigors OF the past winter
have led many philantbropc citizens TO inquire why
every ushel of Goals used by the aboring and the
poor widow should be virtually taxed by the General
Government protect landed interest in Pennsylva-
nia worth already eighteen thousand dollars an acre or
ten times as many millions of dollars there are days
in the year. and yielding to the monoposts year
" rent of one million of dollars for the simple privilege
Of digging coal from the mines
If the question here mooted were SIM
ply that of the necessity OF any duty On
Coal as a measure of Protection, we should
probably not differ from The independent
Whatever might have been expedient or
necessary in the infancy OF its production,
the general rule is obvious that articles Of
great bulk in proportion TO their value
such as Hay, Corn, Potatoes, &c. and we
see no reason why Coal should be ex-
Guided from the category-enloy abundant
Protection in the ineritdHe cost Of trans
porting them any considerable distance.
Where the transportation of staple one
hundred miles by land, five hundred on a
railroad, or a thousand by water, costs
more than its original production, if any
one sees fit to argue that such staple is
abundantly protected by its own bulk, we
are not disposed to quarrel with him. That
the Coal interest has suffered by the Tariff
of '46-we think numerically and injuri-
ously for the Country-is clear enough !;
but not for want of higher duty on Coal.
On the contrary, if the duty on Coal were
utterly and for ever abolished and such
duties imposed instead on Iron and Fabrics
as would set our closed furnaces and idle
factories at work once more, we have no
doubt that the Coal interest would be i'm
mersely and permanently benefited by the
change.
But The independent is not arguing
that Coal should be eliminated from articles
requiring Protection. On the contrary, it
is pitching that useful article in the fashion
of brickbats at the head of any Protection
whatever. With nonchalance savoring
of anything but candor, it assumes as I'M
questioned that the direct and only object
of the Coal duty is to plumber the general
public and put the pillage into the pockets
of the owners of Coal lands. We do not
think this is quite the spirit in which a
Religious journal should make its first
excursions into the domain of Political
Economy. 1t is assuming grave matters
shat ought to be demonstrated, not taken
for granted. If some cold Economist
should set down in the same matter-Of-
course fashion that New York and its
suburbs contain some five hundred
churches, erected and sustained for the
purpose Of giving salaries of $1,000 to
$4,000 each per annum to so many cler-
'gymen," The independent might feel, as
we now do, that there was another way
OF stating the case equally frank. quite as
courteous, and more entirely truthful.
We will let what The Independent
says of the Pennsylvania Coal lands being
worth all of them $4,000 per acre,
yielding /" the monopolists Sl,OOO,O00 a
year, &C., pass without remark, further
than that zee do not know these assertions
TO be facts, and would like to know how
our neighbbr does. The manner in which
they are set forth is not remarkable-the
craftsmanship current at the Pewter Mug
and whose 6ttest exponent is Mike Walsh
can no otherwise be set forth so happily as
in the Giction and dialect Of The Subter-
raneGn. But there are points on which we
will thank The Independent for further
light, since it seems 50 familiar with the
Statistics of Coal, and to that end will
thank 1t for answers to the following ques-
tons
/. What does the duty now levied on
imported Coal practically amount 10 per
tun on the Coal actually imported f!
?. How does the price of Coal since the
present duty was levied compare with the
price of just such Coal when the duty was
lower, or when (if ever) there was no duty!
8. If the duty on Coal were abolished,
whence could "the laboring man and poor
widow" of our City hope to obtain Coal
cheaper than they now dol
We trust The Independent viii meet
fully and fairly the issue it has provoked.