Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1853-03-03

We infer from the general tenor of the debate
in the United States Senate respecting railroad
iron, that Congress will turn deaf ear to the voice
of our Legislature, asking the repeal of existing
duties on that article. 1t is scarcely to be ex-
pected that the tariff question will be taken up at
this late period Of the session for special ben
eft and qualification. The present high prices of
railroad iron will bear heavily Virginia, but
this is one of the Legitimate fruits of the anti
protective policy, and the authors and advocates
of that policy should have the grace to endure
its consequences without complaint murmur.
Had the protection afforded the iron interest
of this country, by the Wing tariff of ls42,
been steadily continued up to this time,
should not row be wholly dependent for
eign nations for the material wherewith to
build our multitudinous and extensive high
ways of internal commerce. Our man
ufacturers would ere now have been in condition
to supply at least large share of the demand
for railroad iron, and this competition between the
domestic and the foreign manufacturer would
have kept down the price of the article in our
| markets. But, thanks to the Democratic tariff Of
'46, the iron interest of the United States has
been prostrated; foreigners now enjoy almost a
monopoly of the trade. and of course have the
power to exact their own prices. This result
was foreseen and predicted by the Wings when
the tariff of '46 was enacted. They did not de-
| ny that undera system of low duties manufactured
iron would be temporarily cheaper than under
protective tariff, but they argued that soon as
our domestic manufactures were broken down and
t,oJ ~ ol,fo
markets, we should be at the mercy of forei gn-
ers, and be compelled to pay just such prices as
| they might choose to demand. Experience has
| fully verified their predictions.
1t appears to that there is a great deal of
force in the objections urged by speakers in
the Senate against the abolition of duties on
railroad iron. Why should there be any discrim-
ination between this species of iron manufacture
| and any other! Are not the free trade Democ-
racy of Virginia in fact asking for protection at
the hands of the Federal Government, when
they solicit removal of the duty on railroad
| iron whilst they suggest no modification of the
tax on other manufactures of the same metal
Virginia has entered upon the execution of
vast system of railway improvements. She
She is deeply interested in the subject of rail road
iron, and would of course witness with peculiar
qualification some reduction in its present price.
But what right has she to call on Congress to in
terpose in this matter, and to egislate for her
benefit? The Federal Government expects tn
| derive three millions of dollars from the i'm
posts on railroad iron for the ensuing year.
II this anticipated supply is cut off, the deficiency
| must be made up by increased duties on other
articles of consumption. We ask that an article
which we expect to consume in larse quantities
shall be specially exempted from taxation and
that additional burthens shall be thrown ON the
shoulders Of other people. If this be not the
very essence Of protection, and class legislation
which locofocoism affects to hold in such holy
| horror, we acknowledge ourselves unable to I'M
derstand the meaning of those terms. If the
Virginia legislature had called on Congress to
abolish all duties on imports and resort to direct
taxation for the support of the Federal Govern
ment, tn cir request would have been unexcep-
tonable lat least on the of fairness and con-
sistency. But so long as they recognise and sane
ton the policy Of raising revenue by impos is
they cannot with any semblance of justice or re-
gard for their protested principl insist that
certain article shall be admitted duty free sim
| ply because they have an extensive demand for
it. This is indeed protection, butt is protection
in its worst shape 1t is taxing the many for
the benefit of the few, but without any inciden-
tai advantage, either immediate or remote
Domestic industry is not fostered and built up by
such protection as this but the contrary is still
further discouraged and depressed
Correspondence of the Richmond Times.
WASHINGTON. Feb. %, 1853.