New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-04-17
AMERICAN AND FOREIGN WARES.

A lady Oh. J. L. writes US setting forth
tain Foreign Manufacturers are of better quality
than their American rivals, whence (she argues) it
will be impossible to induce judicious purchasers
to prefer the latter. The articles she instances
ure Pins. Calicoes Carpets and Artificial Flowers.
Let us consider them.
That American Pins are cheap well formed and
finished, she admits but she says they are not so
strong as the British, but bend easily, and so are
unserviceable. American Calicoes, she urges,
though cheap, are not tasteful and their colors do
not hold az well as those of similar French goods.
English Carpets, she adds, are made of finer wool,
better twisted, and more compactly woven,
than the American. So that, even though the
American are nominally cheaper, they are really
dearer than their European rivals.
Now we really cannot see how British Pins
should be stronger than American Of the same size
each being pieces of brass wire coated with tin.
We suspect prejudice has something to do with
II. J. LIS Judgment, and solicit information on the
subject from those acquainted with the Pin Manu-
facture.
As to Calicoe., we know that fair play is not
usually shown to our own manufactures. If d lady
wishes fabric worth two shillings or more per
yard, she looks for it among French goods of
course if she wants cheap and common article,
costing sixpence to a shilling she thinks American
will answer. OF course, this is every way IN
ferior; vet she draws her comparison between
this and her dear French calico, which does the
latter no Justice. Only give our people de-
mand for superior Calicocs to one-half the extent
of that now enjoyed by the French, and we will
make 90 choice goods as cheap If nd cheaper tlssa
thu French; but so long as the French originator
Of a new and tasteful pattern may fairly expect
demand at remunerating prices for ten times as
MANY nieecs as his American rival may hope to
dispose of, the superiority of the former can easily
be maintained.
As to Carpets, il should be considered that our
present tariff of 1916 raised the duty on their raw
material tcoarse South American Wool from nee
to thirty per cent, which is equal to the present
duty on the Carpets themselves. The British
manufacturer imports the same wool jTee OF duty'
He too has range of markets immensely widef
than ours; this country is but one among MS
many markets, while 10 our manufacturer IL Is al
in all. The British manufacturer has cheaper Ia
Dor and ten times the experience and concentra
ton Of capital possessed by his American rival
he knows, when he gets up new and desirable
pattern, that he can sell enough from it to remit
nerate him for his outlay, which the American
does not and he has the powerful backing o
nearly our whole trading interest, who are more
accustomed to Foreign fabrics, understand an'
like them better, and are quite aware that hbera
margin for profit is more attainable on far-fetche'
fabric than ON a homemade one. We presume
therefore, it is true that British Ingram Carpet
are now gaining ground in our markets, supplant
ing those made in this country. But, on the othe
hand, we are ahead Of the British and all othe
nations in the recent invention of Carpet-weavin
machinery, mainly for moro costly kinds. one {
the most extensive British manufacturers Of Bru'
se,s having rsesatly throvs oat his British loom