Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-03-06
4olrtital.
Protection as a Principle.

We observe by the Congressional report of
Wednesday, that Senator Wilson, of MasSachu-
setts made an earnest speech against an amend
ment to the Morrill, arif bill, which levied a
duty Of fifteen per cent. on all wool invOiced
eighteen cents pound, because, he said, it was
injurious to manufacturers and no benefit to wool
growers. This is queer. We supposed that pro-
lection was to benefit all classes The glorious
Chicago platform says so; at least it goes for
that revenue policy that will equally benefit all
classes; and if protection will not, il must mean
some other policy
Wool is certainly very important interest in
the Northern States; quite as important as iron
1t IS much more exposed to competition with
cheap foreign production than iron. But here
we are told by one Of the leading prOtectiOnists,
that the wooden production can not be protected.
because il will injure the manufacturer. Mr.
Wilson is right; but this single feature shows
that the whole theory of protection is fallacy
The manufacturer, whose materials are subject to
a duty, can not compete with the same article
made of free materials.
So he is driven from the markets of the rest
of the world Is he any better off here? If the
duty is the same on the materials, as the man.
ufactured article, one protection neutralizes the
other, and he Is only put equality here
with the foreign manufacturer, and excluded by
him from the markets of the rest of the world.
Ofcourse the foreign manufacturer, having the
world for his market, and having our manufac-
turer confined to this market, and without any
advantage even here, can crush him, by shipping
his surplus stock here, when the foreign markets
are glutted.
Thus see, by the admission of protection
lists themselves, that tariff on materials is fatal
TO manufacturing industry. So long as such
policy prevails our manufactures must continue
in their state of infancy" and the growth of
labor must be dwarfed- So far the protectionists
are with US. We propose to take them little
further. Does not protection on iron equally
dwarf the growth of all the manufactures of iron
except the simple smelling? Nobody will deny
this
What branch of industry is so well suited to
the ingenuity and genius of the American people
as the manufacture of iron into its thousands of
articles of use? What branch of labor is capa-
bic of such indefinite expansion? We boast of
the superiority of our iron machinery, from the
most ponderous steam engines to the smallest
tools. The whole American continent demands
our iron machinery and implements; and they
find a market in every quarter of the globe.
But propose to restrict all this field Of Amer
ican labor to the narrow limit of smelling Penn
sylvania ore, by putting a duty of Sc tun on
pig mon, Sl5 tun on bar iron, and Sl2 tun on
railroad iron- Certainly the burning down of a
neghbor's barn to roast ones potatoes is the only
fit comparison for this narrow policy.
We speak of Pennsylvania because, although
there are some other iron interests, it is her in
terest that governs this protection and her politi
cal position solely, that enforces it.
We have before said that our objection to du-
ties on imports is radical, going to the very bot
tom of the matter. A tariff purely for revenue
is still more indefensible; for that is simply a
grossly unequal system Of taxation, without any
excuse for its inequality. Protection restricts
American labor, while protesting to advance it.
The protectonsts concede this by their strenuous
ness for free trade in everything but their own
specially 1t entails perpetual infancy on
American industry. 1t takes more than ten per
cent. of the revenue for cost of collection, when
one per cent. pays for the collection of direct
taxes.
Insensible taxation is at the bottom of all our
Governmental extravaganza. A tariff takes the
burden of the support of the Government from
property, and puts it on persons. Millionairies
pay no more taxes for il than men of moderate
means. Thus, the system which pretends to be
fouDded on the protection of American lsbors, is
nothing but load upon labor.
Yetnewspapers talk about free trade as theory
of fancy A theory of farcyl When the mos
sturdy free traders the manufacturers them
selves, in every article they use.
Protection as a theory-as principle-has not
shadow of existence Every protectionist:
repudiates the principle, but he goes for sharI
practice. The great author of the American
System'-as he proudly called it-slaughtereG
it with his own hand, by the compromise of 1888
After spending hall his life in building it up anC
deludng manufacturers by what they supposeC
was a settled policy, he put his own hand to it
throat, in the wretched hope of profting by com
promising with rebellion which his great rival
Gen. jackson, had already crushed.-CineiRRat
DuOitC0n.