New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-08-13

| Inc agent was told everywhere, we uare
not take it if we would we should be put
into Coventry were we to countenance
American loans" Not dollar could be
borrowed, although the Government had
endeayored to provide security for the pay
ment of the interest by restoring the du-
ties on railroad iron, silks, coffee, and
q variety of other articles, the trade In
which had become free by reason of the
prosperous state of the treasury under the
tariff Of 1928. Protection had led to free
trade. British free trade had carried
III back to restriction.
What was the operation of the tariff Of
1912 we all know. Under it we built
mills and furnaces and we opened mines
and the domestic production Of cotton and
wooden cloth doubled. while that of coal
and iron trebled, and so great was the in
crease in the power of our people to pay
for foreign merchandise that the public
revenue which III l640-41 and lo41-42
had been only eighteen millions, had al
ready in 1345-46 risen to almost thirty
millions, with every prospect Of steady
increase. As necessary consequence, the
Government was enabled to pay off much
of the forty millions Of public debt con-
tractcd in the free trade period-184l
to 1343. In this period we contracted no
foreign deJt-we sent abroad no railroad
bonds. On the contrary. we resumed pay
ment of the interest on much of the debt
that had been contracted in the cOmpro-
mise period and to that extent dimin-
ished our power to import foreign mer-
chandise and of course TO contribute to
the customs revenue.
We now appeal to our readers to say if
this is not true statement of the facts as
they existed in 1898, 1912 and 1916, the
closing years of the two periods of protec-
ton. and of the one period of British free
trade. If there is among them even sim
Gle one disposed to deny that it is so, we
ask him to give lis his version of them,
and promise him in advance that he shall
find place in our columns for his commu-
nication. We doubt if there is single
one that will undertake TO do so, and yet
precisely this it is that our neighbOrs of
The Journal have desired to do by aid of
the "false tables" with which we have
charged them. We have now before Us
one of their articles, headed - Commerce
and the Tariff" protesting TO furnish a cor
rect view of the trade of the Union for the
last thirty years, and having for its object
to prove decline in the prosperity of the
nation under the protective tariffs of 1928
and 1912. and an increase therein under the
British free trade system of 1910 40 and
1647-50; and so skillully are the figures
arranged that they are well calculated to
deceive those whose knowledge Of the
true state Of the facts is not sufficient TO
enable them to furnish the corrections.
Agreeably to them it would appear that the
power to pay for foreign merchandise had
remained stationary under the tariff of
1628-that it had increased under the
compromise. and still further under its
free trade provisions of 134O-42-that it
had declined under the tariff of 1842-and
has since risen underthat of 1876. Under
the free trade system of 1340-42, it is clear
ly shown that our imports averaged SILL
100000 per annum, while under the pro-
tectiye system of 1912 it is just as clearly
shown that they averaged less than S1O3,-
100000. In opposition to this is the remark
able and we'll known fact that the Govern
ment was almost bankrupt in the prosper
Gus period of British free trade, although
numerous articles that had been free
had been anew subjected to duty,
while in 1845 and '46 it was rapidly
paying off the debt contracted in the
free trade period, although tea and cot
fee had again become free. Nothing.
however is impossible to a man who un-
derstands the construction Of false tables
and the facts sought for by our neighbors
are 50 clearly demonstrated that it would
be difficult for any one not fully initiated
to doubt their existence. Figures" it is
said, "cannOt lie" What truth there is
in this assertion our readers may decide
for themselves after examining the follow
ing view of the tariff of 1912, taken from
TIE Journals article, and our comments
upon it:
80 Dem exports. For. eypsr Totalexpor Total imports
I5i3 s53l93 SO $500 o97 Ss4,3l6l $50 sol 73j799
!34i- .4O0 le3497 109l7sl Hips 215 lOs i3i70a
3D.. 9l2y9Ilb lJ3i6S30 LII 30 n06 ll125I SCI