New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-01-17

o,sumer We having diea"J P''
$50 come forty to fifty thousand dollars lot l'on
..~.;rlv Power Presses,) and having gwen orueIs
-. 6fteen thousand dollars worth more.
10 80 no personal interest in lron-works,
., manufactures. But, in order TO buy
DC we must sell Newspapers; and we have
,..,ned by experience that we can sell more OF
,her, and obtain more pay when American IRON
,oat;pg and other branches Of Manufacturing
Industry are fourlshng aud expanding, the labor
skilled therein fully employed and literally paid,
,h.n ve can when our furnaces and factories
are sbut I'D and our country mainly supplied
with Iron and Fabrics from Europe
This branch Of the general question our Iron
selling friend ignores altogether. He dllates on
Tho cbeanpess of his Iron, as though British
pie Currents were unknown on this side Of
Tho Atlantic: but he does not tell us how many
T,ibunes we are likely to sell to the British fur
n,cemen and hammerers, when our own shall
have been driven of into the wilderness by Brit
ish cheap Iron or compelled TO accept ten dollars
a month as hired laborers on farms. Let our
mills and FORCES all be at full work, with good
WAGES and new concerns starting up, and we do
not find il difficult to pay for new and costly
presses. even though Iron is dear; but when
our Manufactures laDguish, our Furnaces are
idle. our Iron-workers tramping for work or
waiting for 1t at home, their subscriptions to
The Tribune run out and are not renewed; SO
that though Iron may be cheaper, we are far
less able to purchase and pay for 1t.
With our Farmers, the i still stronger.
We will take the case Of one who lives IN elm
ton County, ~ Y, or in Clarion Co Pa, who,
while our lTon.works are active, can sell all the
Potatoes, Oats, Apples, Butter, Wood, Charcoal
&c, &c, his farm viii turn of at good, living
prices. At length our Country takes Mr. Birds
advice, dscards Protection and goes in for cheap
Iron. Our farmer can now obtain his Iron ten
dollars per t.n cheaper IN cash If he had 1t /;
but how is he to get the cash The lron-works
near him are shut up their workmen must
grow their own food or 20 without and he must
send his Potatoes, Oats, Butter Apples, &c, 20
a distant market and sell them there for less
than they formerly brought him at home, while
his Wood and Charcoal will not pay tie cost of
transportation to market. Thus the apparent
reduction in the cost of his Iron is a delusion; it
will cost him more produce, more days works,
to buy tun of Iron. now than it did when he
paid higher nominal price for 1t.
All says an objector; you are looking
only to those farmers who live near Iron works,
and forgetting the great majority
No, Sir You mistake us All farmers do
not live near Iron-works many find their han
diest and best markets at Cotton Factories,
others at Wooden Mills, others at Print Works,
others at Lead or Copper Mines, &c, but the
principle is the same. Our general proposition
is that where Nature has nterposed no obstacle,
is cheaper and better for our Farmers to make
Il The interest Of Mechanics and Manufacturers 10
settle in tht, vieiaity, and so build up Home Mar
ksfs, than 10 send thar Produce the a..
quest Of such markets. They may sometimes pay
a larger money price for their manufactures, but
they viii obtain them more steadily, surely,
and at a cost OF less labor.
Our English friend is OF course aware that
such is the ground on which we stand-dOes his
argument reach it OF what use to reterate
that British Iron costs fewer pounds or dollars
per tun than American, when 40 one denies 1t
We freely admit that British Iron would for the
present cost our consumers fewer dollars than
American, while it Is equally clear that the lat
ter would cost them fewer days wOrk. In sup
port of this we have repeatedly shown from Off
cia documents that the general consumption OF
Iron in this country steadily, rapidly Increased
nnder our late Protective Tariff, while 1t has
declined or stood still under our present com
paratvely Revenue Tariff, though the price
(then stimulated by the Railroad mania IN Eng
handy is considerably lower now than 1t was
then We submit that discussion cannot al
vance while one party is content with repeating
his own arguments without looking at those al
vanced on the other side. We Prosecnonists
know what Arguments are relied on 10y our an
taconlsts--we have considered them once and
again; but they seem unaware OF tho existence
OF ours. Which party is the one likely to be
right
But we will consider Mr. Birds positions,
as he presents them:
/. Protection in England is identified II not
identical with Toryism-We think II wo1ld not
be difficult to disprove this historically. Ii We
mistake not, the British Navigation Act, which
seems to us the cornerstone OF British Protec-
ton, was passed under the rule Of OLIVER
CRonwELL, when TopiSm and Tones dld not
abound in the British Parliament We know,
too, that the Abolition OF the Com-Laws was
carried 10y the personal influence of the Tory
Premier SIR Rober; Peel, backed 10y the Duhe oi
Wellngton-they two having been the great
antagonists of Parliamentary Reform. WethinA
II would be easy TO show that, up TO recen,
period, Wings and Tories have We'd with each
other IN UNFOLDING the policy of Protection.
But we NEEDLE sparingly with the purely do
nestle politics of other Nations, and are quite
willing that Great Britain should adjust her
own legislation 10 her own circumstances,
claiming Tor our own country the right 20 DO tn,
same.
2 As 20 the relative oheapneSS On money! OF
Rr,t,.h and Amcrlran lrnn-Nf lrrelN rnnrnll