Polynesian., 1852-02-21
A NUT FOR THE FREE TRADERS.

Silas Wright voted for the Tariff of 1912, and
by so doing made it law. His objection to pro-
tective duties was based upon the idea that they
enhance the price Of the protected article, and are
therefore paid by the consumer. IT, as believed Dv
the advocates of the American System duties really
adequate for protection tend to reduce the cost and
to throw the tax upon the foreign producer, the
only argument against the Wing Protective Policy
fails.
The following anecdote, communicated by
correspondent of the n Y. Tribune, will show what
conclusion Silas Wright was forced to upon this
question:
A Committee from New York, of which was
member called on the late Hon. Sias Wright of
the Senate, and endeavored to engage him in
conversation on the Tariff. He objected mildly,
for at that time his party had not fairly declared
which side of that question they would array them
selves.
MIR. Wright said that his great objection to a
Protective Tariff was that "the consumer paid a
direct tax to sustain the manufacturer" We then
asked him if he did not think that the competition
arising from protection, soon caused the protected
article to be furnshedat a reduced price. He said
he had heard that argument before but was not
ready to admit its truth that such had not in his
opinion been the result with articles formerly pro-
tected.
"Well, Mr. Wright, if it could be clearly shown
that every article which has ever received FIVE
years consecutive protection by tariff, has been
furnished at the end of that time at less cost to
the consumer than the foreign cost at the time the
protective duty was imposed. would you then agree
to vote for Protective Tariff Eyes, certainly"
said Mr.. Wright, I" and will undertake to name
many articles to which your rule will not apply"
sWell, SIR said our Committee man, " we hold you
to your promise either to find the exception or to
vote for the tariff.
aAre you really serious, sir, !" said Mr.. W., ain
supposing that cannot find the exception ~
6 Certainly, sir; we defy you from the many hum
dred articles which have been protected from time
to time to find one which is not within our rule
The very moment capitalists find that manufac-
ture is protected, they invest their capital and 9TH
ers doing the same, causes competition and conse-
auent Improvement in machinery, and thus the
price is reduced, and further protection, at the
same fcreigncost, rendered unnecessary. Why,
saws Mr. W., "look at the article of nails; their
cost is in the material; why have they not been re-
duced bv your rule $50 they have, and If you
will recollect, few years ago nails now worth &c.
per pound were then sold at IL 1-2 cents, and were
II not for the use of American machinery, invented
IN consequence of the competition arising out OF
protection, the same nails could not now be import
ed from England for less than 10 1-2 cents per
pound"
After proposing few other articles of manufac-
ture with like success, Mr. Wright said: "Well,
gentlemen, YOU have my promise and shall fulhl
# but YOU will find it will be by pointing out the
exceptions to your rule and not by voting for the
tariff. | need not tell YOU that Mr.. Wnght m