New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-02-10
RESULTS OF PROTECTION IN
GERMANY.

Our neighbor Of The Daily Times has recent
ly furnished his readers with couple Of col
umns designed to prove the failure Of protec-
ton in the ZOIl- Verein, but with US they have
had the directly contrary effect of proving that
it has fully accomplished its object, of making
a large market for food while lowering the
prices of cloth, and that, we think, will be his
own conclusion when he shall have reflected
more carefully on the facts. His statement in
regard TO Cotton, is as follows:
COTTON Raw Cotton has been duty free Cotton
thread has averaged a duty OF 2ls v cent. Cotton
goods pay from 33i5 to 20 y cent. TIC lnports-
non Of raw Cotton has advanced from 1887 cwt ia
1894 20 4of2ee cwt In 1850 The increase OF imports
over exports in Cotton yarn and goods has been from
1878 ewt in 1854 up 20 d52sJ IN lsij and has then
sunk 70 1872 Go owt, In 1850"
We have here an increase in the import
OF raw cotton in 10 years Of ewts. ..3l9OJJ
And an increase in the import of cotton
yarn and cloth over the exports, Of. .iJ2,OO
Giviugan increased consumption of. -. oll 900
or more than poo, 900 bales of cotton.
To ascertain the value of this fact, we'must
now inquire what proportion the increase bears
20 the consumption at the date OF the forma.
ton Of the Union. In 1886, the total import
of Cotton and Yarn was $4,000 cuts, but
il had then, as is stated in the papers before
us, increased at least fifty p cent, and this
would give 265,000 sicts. as the imports Of
1884, and this We believe 10 be in excess of
the truth Now if to this we add an increase
of $1,000 We obtain l,076,00 e,rts, thus es-
tablishing the fact that under protection the
consumption Of cotton cloths in Germany has
more than quadrupled in sixteen years Our
readers viii here please 10 observe that in re-
gard TO the latter year We are using our neigh
boris figures, which We have NOT the means of
verifying, and that if there is any error il does
not originate with US.
Two years have since elapsed, and for the
facts in relation TO them We viii now give high
free trade authority, that Of Professor McCay,
in HINTS Magazine for January last:
"0n tie Continent CT Europe the consumption has
been steadily increasing IL progress Il Ucs .y
checked Is high prices b.; these are ONLY ,erorsrv
disturbances in rs EDWARD msrcb In Russia Ire I'M
ports fer the three years from ls4l ls43 we're 3
ewts; from ls4i TO ls46 they 5si0Oo; and from
ls47 to 1919 they were l0oSOoO In the German Zo
Yerein, he Pr9crfre Gxtes tsey hare imposed Aars
rsa GnplS Sac0EragaaeEi % he A1zS raHEF1crEys OF
e0r0a goods. The English and American exports OF
cotton 10 these and other Continental SAFES have
averaged (see Table lX Az 900 bales IN lsfs and ls4s
Sd GO IN lc49 Gnc $50 AMI $4,000 "a ISL aud ls2
For the incoming year they viii almost certainly reach
COO coo bales, whicb Is trae less than The amount Tor
tie present se&son"
This does not look much Ike failure IN the
working Of protection. The consumption Of
cotton in the protected countries of the Cont.
nent Of Europe, exclusive of France was, in
lsi7-'4s, Az goo bales, and last year it reached
$4,000, giving an increase in four years OF
hity her eens.-whereas, in the unprotected
countries of Europe it would, We think, be dif
heuit to ind an increase to the extent Of sin
| gle bale