The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-10-21
THE TARIFF.--Do THE OPPOSITION PROPOSE A
- - PROTECTIVE SYSTEM

neghbors Of the Iaiehsgencer as the prospect Of
viving the old protectivetarf issues. "Protection
TO home manufactured was the warcry of their party
for more than quarter Of a century, and now that
il is revived in few enthusiastic Journals il gives
the mtsLlgsnfer unbounded satisfaction. OF COURSE
everybody knows that duties levied upon for
eign goods, the like Of which arc produced or
manufactured in our own country unless they
are held here at rates cheaper than abroad, af-
ford incidental protection to the American pro-
Queer or manufacturer Of such articles. All reve-
nue. laws, them protective in their very nature.
But what the Infelligaeu wants, is not incidental
protection, but specific discrimination in favor of
certain nteress-legislation not with view to the
collection of money for tho Of the government
but with the primary purpose Of aiding manufac-
turers and miners Such, we infer, at all events,
are the views Of the htelligeneer
We bring these suggestions before that journal
not much to discuss the tariff question to en-
deavor get 1T the real intentions of the opposition
press. Do they propose then, to seek the enactment
of laws to aid especially certain classes Of our
people? We denominate such laws, directing the
collection Of duties upon imports, Revenue
System" Are we to change this designation by
making revenue incident to protection and
call it Protective System? We repeat that reve-
nue. laws incidentally protective of such articles
as are manufactured in this country; because they
give to the owners thereof to the extent of the duty
imposed, monopoly Of our own markets. For in
stance, if broadcloths made in other countries
twenty per cent cheaper than they be made
here, and we impose duty upon the foreign article
of forty per cent ad valorem it is manifest that
the effect of the duty will be to exclude the
foreign cloths and give the American manu-
facturer the monopoly Of markets. This
case illustrates what mean by making
enue incidental to protection instead of making
protection incidental to revenue for, while
the proposition suggested would undoubtedly
keep up the price of broadcloh to rates above the
cost Of their manufacture the duty imposed would be
prohibitory, cutting off all importations, and, Of
course all revenues on that article. .u
But our present purpose is to obtain from the In
teligencer and other tariff journals avowal of the
principle upon which they propose that Congress
shall legisate in reference to the importation of
duties upon articles of foreign and domestic produc-
ton. We infer from paragraph quoted approving
ly by our neighbors, from the Richmond Enquirer,
that they will insist upon the organization of Pro-
tective System in place of a Revenue System. The
Enquirer says:
Euen suppose should pay one-trd more for Vrqna
than for English iron, and spend So 900 600 instead Of ST.
600 900 yearly Ood not sill be the gamer of So, 000
600 By the operation -
The Enquirer maintains in this the utmost doc
trnes of prohibition with reference to the article of
railroad iron and we presume that the manufac-
turers in other parts of the country will be ready to
prefer similar claims to exclusive protection. This
principle easy to see would carried out utterly
destroy our present revenue system and bankrupt
the treasury, but Of would add immensely to
the profits of the manufacturers. The sugar interest
Of Louisiana would apply the same argument that,
by prohibiting the introduction Of the foreign arti-
Gle ii would stimulate domestic production and keep
the money which we now pay to Cuba all in the
country. Suppose we do have to pay thirty three
per cent more for sugar than it now COSTS would
not be better to do 50 and keep the money in the
country than to purchase what we require from
spaniards r. We put this question on the tongues
Of the Louisiana producers in order to bring it dis
tinctly before the people. M.
We might go ON in this way till we had covered all
the articles produced manufactured in the United
States, which, under judicious revenue system,
como into competition with producers and manufac-
turers Of like articles abroad and having protected
the several interests by imposing prohibitory duties
We should certainly have system which, if the
Enquirer is right in its positions, would keep our
money in the country. Meantme,it may be well to
inquire, who pays the increased prices Of the do
nestle article and by whom is the money kept2
The farmer of course, would be required to contrib
ute his share and how will the law operate upon
him which cuts off all foreign trade? 1t is clearly
the interest of the agrculturalis to command if pos
sble the markets Of the world. If he is, them COM
PEELED 10 pay onethrd more for whathe consumes Of
iron sugar and other articles, he should have some
compensation therefor by being able to command
higher rates for his productions, .as Z
Is this latter benefit likely to to him by cut
ting of exports to foreign countiesf 1t is absurd
to expect that we shall be able to command markets
abroad for our cotton and grains if we close
TO their products and manufactures
We merely introduce these suggestions with a
view Of obtaining from the opposition Journals an
avowal as wo said, Of the principle upon which
they propose to modify the existing revenue sys-
tent We give no opinions upon the question Of
the adequacy Of that system to obtain revenues to