New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-03-19

tp-er,' Tay:d." &C.. because 81 .iIs item. Ws
were surprised 10 see him subject hmsed to the
prompt AID hearty concurrence Of Mr.. Joan
Ietober of Virginia. Mr.. L. aolis-we doubt not
hone,tly-that al Determinations with an eye 70
Protection are wrong and OPpress!ye-thas they
Are but deyices 70 plumber the great body Of con-
sumers for the prof. Of larger or smaller c'ass oil
nroducers. Such language as Mr.. Stanton uttered
would have been perfectly appropriate in the mouth
If Mr. Letcher-we have been hearing il, unnoved
from that school for msny years. The language
itself had . familiar and mas.er-Of.course sound;
I. was only its utierauce BY one Ike Mr. stanton
tina. surprised US.
We oute .cree with Mr.. Stanton that the Pro-
tec.ive policy is for the present wreck-i' may or
NAV not remain 50. So long as any considerable
norton Of is friends shall regard il with 80 narrow
srsnse Of vision IS Mr.. Stsnton's, We cannot hope
for its restoration.
Mr.. Stanton needs no answer from US TO his ale
CATION that Agriculture is equally deserving OF Pro-
lection with Manufactures. We only insist that
Agriculture is generally and mainly to be protected
through that diffusion of Manufactures which shall
brig unfaiIng markets nearer and nearer TO the
doors of the farmers. duty of dollar bushel
on Corn would not help our corn-growers an atom;
while any adjustment Of duties which should have
the effect of filing the Mississippi Valley with
cotton. WOODEN linen, boot aud shoe factories,
FORCES. furnaces, rolling mills, &c, &C., would s.
least double the value of al the land in that Valley
by doubling the home price of its products. Yet
- NJ Pant lnCia Ia
"a Manufacturer Tarif''-"a bill 10 benefit the
manufacturer at the ,rp.nse Of the farmer" W
thpk otherwise.
Mr.. Stanton cannot see how the Manufacturers
are TO be benefited by the change 10 the Wool duty
unless the price of Wool is to be reduced by it.
We will try to show him. Wool is no. homoge
neous staple like Wheat or Cotton; it embraces
varieties worth sixty cents per pound, and others
not worth fifteen. The same factory uses grades
nearly IS far apart IS these extremes: tho same
fleece is often sorted" into many grades, and applied
10 widely diverse uses; nay, Wool of widely differ
ent values is often woven into the sans fabric.
Now. We can understand how the Importation of
cheap coarse Wool free of duty may give additional
value TO better qualities produced by our farmers,
creating demand for these TO be worked up into
fabrics which, but for the free importation OF part
of their stock, must have been undersold and sup.
planted by foreign fabrics. We suspect that the
bigb prices of Wool through the last year could
hardly have been sustained under any Tariff; but
We shall be grievousy disappointed if the new
Tariff reduces them. Yet we have not looked TO
the price of Wool alone to determine how the
change in the Wool duty must affect our farmers;
for we hold that the increased demand for Food,
Fuel, &C.. consequent on renewed activity in our
Manufactures may fully compensate our farmers for
reduction in the prices of their Wool.
Such are our views of the subject discussed by
Mr.. Stanton We submit them, with his to candid
and intelligent public.