New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-07-11

"An Onondsga Farmer" in an article which
We published some time ago, marked BY Italics
statement which be probably considers very forci-
Bile, and which we will therefore attend to- Iii
as follows:
"You insist that is for the interest Of the wool
growers to have wool duty free and you ssy that the
making wool duty-free in England, Germany and
France, has quickened the market and enhanced the
price Of wool throughout the world. 1t would ap-
pear to follow that if the United States were to 90
hkewise the effect would be to raise the price OF wool
still higher. If the manufacturer thought that Free
trade IN nooi Topd make rooi higher, they pontd not
te likely to Jaror The nedsure; and if Free trade will
make the material higher, why will not Free trade
make the same material when turned into cloth higher
Why woulo not Free trade in iron make iron IN Penn.
sylvania higher? IL Free trade will raise the prce OF
WOOL why not Free trade raise the price OF every
thngl'
AS our correspondent does not appear to take
issue with US on our staten OF fact, We Will
proceed to consider bis deductions tberefrom:
/. We do indeed believe that Iron would be
higher on the average among us if American Iron
were rot and never had been protected, and we
have many times given facts which justify this con-
victon. But it by 10 means results from this that
1t would be better for our Iron makers to have
Iron admitted duty free. We are morally certain
that newspapers would be decidedly dearer in this
country if British newspapers could replace and
supplant them just as British Iron or Calico can
supplant that made in this country; and yet we
are equally sure that our Newspaper business is
far more ourishing than it would be with an active
and formidable foreign competition for the supply
of our home markets, a consequent irregular and
limited demand rendering higher prices absolutely
necessary. Our habitual readers will not need a
fuller elucidation of this point.
2. Now, then, it is our firm conviction that
admitting Wool free would start a good many
Wooden factories now idle, and decidedly enlarge
the demand for American Wool. Is this hard to
understand Let us suppose that the raw mate
rial for piece of cloth now costs one hundred dol
lars and that the abolition Of the Woodbury. would
enable the manufacturer to procure the coarser
half Of that material thirty per cent cheaper than
at present-tbat is for thirty five dollars. Now he
can afford to pay ffty.fve for the other half-mak
ing the entire cost ninety dolars-and still make at
profit fabric which he could before only have
made at loss. Is this hard to understand
8. The whole controversy hinges on two points:
/. Will the admission of coarse, cheap Wool, free
of duty enlarge or diminish the Home demand for
American Wool g. Or, in case the Home de-
Insnd for Wool should not be increased, will the
increased demand for other farm products to subsst
the additional labor employed in factories fully
compensate the farmers for the decreased Don.
sumption of their Wool 2 We believe the farmers
will profit both ways-that more of their Wool
will be required in consequence Of the remission Of
duty, and that many families will be withdrawn
from the list of competitors and transformed into
profitable customers Of our food growers.
Our general idea is that whatever tends to
bring producers and consumers nearer together,
benz fits both. We do not imply by this, as Free
Traders obstinately affirm, that it would be wise to
foster the production of Ice in Ceylon or Of Pine
apples in Greenland, in defiance of natural laws.
Now if it be true that coarse inferior wool can be
produced on the snOwless Pampas OF South Amer
lea at O cost of five to ten cents per pound, We
doubt the wisdom of melting our farmers to
attempt the growing of such Wool; while it BY no
means follows that We should 60 without it. Tho
better qualities we believe can aud should be eco
nomically produced in this country; and We there
fore desire a tariff on Wool essentially like that
of 1e42-admttiDg Wool which costs less than
seven or eight cents per pound substantially free,
and imposing stiff Protective duty on the better
qualities. Such is the tariff which commends itself
to our judgment; if we were now called to act on
the subject, we should take the beet we could get
And 1t is our decided conviction that, as between
the present tariff and the entire abolition of Wool
duties, the latter would be the more advantageous
IN both manufacturers and farmers