Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-02-25

effect Of these high duties upon these article
Of prime necessity, by enhancing their price, i
the same as.if We were to pass law to reduce
the wages of labor. To reduce these dutie
would be, on the other hand, to increase tn
wages of labor for though they would nomi
nally remain the same, they would buy more
and leave larger surplus. For the interest
then, of the laboring classes, insist that thes'
duties should be reduced and, if done, it woult
not be inappropriate to entitle the bill, "a bill
to reduce the duties on articles of prime neces
sity, and to increase wages"-a result, appre
hend, whi-h would be entirely satisfactory t,
every man in the United States who has to earl
his bread by the sweat of his brow.
Another defect in the present tariff is, thai
the revenue is. derived from too high rate o
duties. What 1 mean is evident when I state
that for the year 1858 $49,00O000, or six sew
enths Of the entire revenue, was derived from
duties of twenty-five per cent. and upwards
Experience has demonstrated, that upon tht
generality of articles twenty per cent, dutie:
is the revenue standard that if you advance
the duties beyond that point you more or les
prohibit importations and diminish the revenue
1t is not difficult, therefore, to understand how
the collection Of six seyenths of the revenue al
rate of duty five per cent, above the revenue
standard, must operate most injuriouSly upor
the exchanges of the country by diminishing
the imports, and, by. consequence, the exports
In the interest, then, Of the exchanges Of tht
country, insist on a reduction of our presen
high rate Of duties.
In thus pointing out the defects Of the pres
ent tariff, would not be understood as depre
ciating the craftsmanship of the gentleman wht
was at the head of the Treasury Department
IN 1916, and who it is understood had more in
fuence in the passage of this act than any one
else. I allude to Mr.. Robert J. Walker. Or
tho contrary, think the country owes him 6
great debt of gratitude for his services upor
that occasion. His celebrated report, in 1916
is o mastery exposition of our true revenue
policy and if the tariff of 1916 did not come
up to the high standard of his report, the fault
am sure, was not in him, but in the difficul.
ties of his position.
now propose, Mr. Chairman, to consider the
report from the majority of the Committee o
Ways and Means on this subject. That report
rests upon the idea that the protective policy is
wise policy, and that the tariff should be
modified in subservience to. that policy. wish
to examine that question; and if destroy the
foundation upon which the report rests, ther
the superstructure erected upon it must fall tc
the ground. To put the argument in the most
striking and comprehensive light, | will state
it in Simple and practical form. Certain per.
sons wishing to 60 into manufacturing, ask Gov,
eminent. to aid them in business. Naturally
improbable, by preventing the consumers OF
the country from buying foreign goods cheap
in order that those consumers may be compelled
to buy their goods dear. These are the three
propositions necessarily involved in the demand
for protection. Let us examine them.
As regards the first proposition, Government
is asked to aid. men in cmbarking in an unpro-
ftable business. I think that have stated this
proposition correctly. The proposed business
is either profitable or it is Improbable. If it
were profitable, no application would be made
to Government for aid. The very fact Of the
application to Government necessarily implies
that the business is Improbable. This is a
logical conclusion of absolute certainty. As
suming. then, that the proposed busines is un-
profitable, what course ought Government to
take? Is it not plain that, if it did anything,
instead Of aiding persons to go into an unprofl-
table business it should rather discourage them
from it? For it must be observed that Gov
ernmcnt does not by its action increase the
capital of country; it can only give new
direction to it. The capital of a country, then,
remaining the same. insist it is unwise for
Government, as mere question OF political
economy, to aid in turning any portion OF the
capital of country into an unplohtable chan
mel because III the degree that the rates OF
profit upon the capital thus unprofitably direc-
ted is below the average rate of profits of the
capital of the country generally, to that extent
there is an absolute loss to the productive ener-
gies of the country. Therefore, it is unwise in
any country to turn capital into any channel
Welding less rate of profit than the average
of profits of the country. But such policy is
ilnwiSe with us, having, as we do, a
new. vast, and undevcoped country, needing
only the application of capital and energy to
produce the grandest and most profitable re-
suits So much for this first proposition.
As regards the second proposition, that the
consumers should not be allowed to buy foreign
goods cheap: shall not dwell upon the inins-
tice involved in this proposition. though it strikes
me as direct attack upon the right of proper
ty and the right of labor, to prohibit man
from buying or selling to the best advantage.
To the extent that lie loses by your prohibition,
to that extent You have coniiScated the fruits
of his industry. But, what wisdom is there in
this proposition 1t is true, we are often told
ly the monopolists that it is ruinous to buy
cheap foreign goods But can hardly conceive
of a more monstrouS falacy than this idea.
Test it by every days experience and common
sense Suppose, Mr.. Chairman You should go
into tailor's shop to buy coat, and the tailor
should say to you; You may have this one
for thirty dollars, it was made in the United
States; but you may have that other one,
Which is Just as good, for fifteen dollars, as it
was made in Europe" What would you Go ?
Why, with all your aversion to foreign inhu
ence, you would, imagine, take two OF the
fifteen dollar coats, rather than one of the
thirty dollar coats. Everybody acts upon this
it is the wisdom of every day lie.
IF it IS wise in individuals to do this, why is it
not wise in the country to tlo the same 10
show the infinite absurdity of this idea, let us
suppose that foreign countries, instead oil sell
inc us their goods cheap, should give them to
MS What would be the consequence Why,
our utter ruin: for if it is injurious to buy
cheap, of course it would be utter ruin to get
for nothing. Such is the logical conclusion to
which this argument necessarily tends-a con-
sequence so absurd shall not dwell longer
upon it.
Now for the third. In order that these man
ulacturers may succeed, they require yon to
make the consumers of the country purchase
from them at price enhanced to the extent OF
the duty on the foreign article What justice
is there in that2 Why is it that one portion
of the people should be compelled to buy from
another portion, and smaller portion, at q
higher price than they could buy elsewhere
Nby shopld tho great body of the American