New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-02-10
NrwvopU nAuy TRJBINE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1858

Tbisvast increase indicates great increase in
the Dorer Of consumption, and thus the object
of,-o,actiou would be answered even had there
been no dimiuution Of price. Not only, how
ever have prices fallen in Germany, bu! Ger
nan .o,npe,ition has, SIS our readers well know,
tended greatly to reduce prices in all the mar
tet. Of the world In 1884, Germany imported
her cottOus, and she paid for them Manchester
prices Plus the cost of Importation. Inc Peo-
ME Of Germany clothed themselves, OF course,
At much greater cost than did the people OF
Fprland. IN 1888, only four years after the
formation of the Union, the attention oil Ing
land Was called to the fact that under protection
Germany was not only supplying herself with
usnv articles of cotton, but that she was &C.
tually making them so cheaply as to be driving
ENGLAND out of some of the principal foreign
markets. Protection had made goods cheap
and II has continued so to do TO the present
time. and while German competition has tended
70 lower English prices. German e1ertiOn has
enabled the people of Germany to keep pace
with English reductions, and TO maintain theG-
selves in the markets of the world.
In speaking of the imports and exports OF yarn
and cloth our neighbor has given Us differences
only. and not quantities He says that the e1-
cess Of imports over exports was less in 1850
than in 1345. Why, however, should there
have been any export Was there any in 1854 :
Did not the people Of Germany then pay higher
prices than the people of England, and was not
export therefore impossible Does not the
large present export prove that protection has
so lowered the prices of cloth as to have ena-
bled Germany TO compete in foreign markets
on equal terms with the people of England :
Has she not thus made large market for food,
and has she not thus relieved herself from the
necessity for flooding the market of England
with grain, and thus maintained the prices OF
food instead Of depressing them Has she not
thus benefited her farmers By keeping up the
prices Of all they had to sell, while lowering the
prices Of what they needed to buy, and was
this not the very object of protection : Have
not her farmers thus profted on both hands,
and does not this account for the large increase
I Of consumption To us il seems that such is
certainly the case.
There remain two things in relation 10 this
paragraph to which We desire to call our neigh
bors' attention. Between 1916 and 1850, five
recolect rightly, the duty on yarn was largely
increased, and this was done with the express
view of establishing direct trade with the
producers Of cotton, and OF diminishing the
imports of yarn. If this were so, 1t would
have been proper for our neighbor to have
stated It, as il accounts for the fact that while
warn had slightly decreased, raw cotton had
largely increased. 1t appears, however, that
so large had been the increase in the power OF
consumption that the additional duty on yarn
Lad had but slight efect-the difference
between ISl5 aud 1850 being given at only
$1,000 cwt., or about $4,000 bales. Now, the
wear 1850, which our neighbor has selected
for comparison, and with view TO prove the
disadvantage Of protection, happens 20 have
been q short crop one. In the two that had
preceded it, the crops averaged 2,ooO,OJJ
bales,wh ereas in this one it was under2, 100000,
and the consumption OF England fell of al
mostSO0 COO The demand of Germany on Eng
land appears, nevertheless to have been main
taired within $4,000 bales, thus afiording
proof. conclusive that her power to pay high
prices was great Again, this deficiency OF
1900 bales is obtained by comparison With
I5i5, which happens to have given the largest
crop ever raised in the Union TO that date ex-
ceeding the average OF the four previous years
by almost hdlf-d-mi!liOa Of bates. The average
price of l3i5 was sir cents, whereas that Of
1850 was ADORE 6erca cents, and yet these two
years are picked out for the purpose of COM
pairing the working of British free trade on the
one hand, and German and American free
trade on the other Ii is really TO be regret
ted that the advocates of British monopoly
should find themselves so universally compelled
TO select their facts and figures They have,
however, a difficult task before them-that
approving the truth not to be the truth-and
must be excused.
We shall take an early occasion TO notice
the statements Of our neighbor in regard TO
wool and iron.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE.