, 1865-03-20


IL the TRIBUNE Of the Sd inst, notice q
communication relative toa Protective Tariff,
in which the writer expresses the opinion that
the Democratic party derived its succes5 from
its Free Trade policy. Without wasting the
spacei in your valuable paper to discuss that
point, it is merely suggested that it would be
easy TO demonstrate Ihs fact that for many
years past the Democratic party has derived
its power from the money and the political
influence Of Southern slareholdcrs. In fact,
it may well be doubted whether the Demo-
cratic party would ever have assumed the
free trade policy ut all, were it not that the
shareholders were anxious to cotTy that policy
for the benefit OF their cotton trade. [Our
But the subject Of a tariff is one oil deep In
teSest to every American. And now that It
cab be discussed without the heated fire of
the Southern chivalry, let Us inquire candidly,
what is tie 0biect Of protective tariff: Is
it not to protect our home manufacturers
from foreign competition? But why protect
from compstt1ton when we acknowledge that
competition Is the great regu!ntor OF trade
and manufactures both! And why protect
tie mechanic and not protect tie farmer also ?
answer: The farmer does not need such
protection, for no foetfgn nation can compete
with us in raising whea7, corn, oats, potatoes,
meat or fruit, fur our own consumption,
tiou. because England can manufacture goods
much cheaper than We can.
But, says the objector, ought We not to
purchase goods wherever Re can get them
the cheapest: We think not in this case.
Fhs', be:auEe to buy our goods from Eng
land would tend to bring down the price Of
labor in our own country to level with that
Of England. Second, It would tend to op-
press The poor, and to increase the power Of
moreycd mnnopolies, md would cut Oft from
The ]abo1er thr hope Of raising himself to en-
equality with his rich ncighDor. Third, By
cause it would stop The flow Of emigration to
this country, and leave Dur unlimited internal
rcsourct still nndevclopcd.
For illustration, let US suppose that the
:ariff were abolished md free trade Ut once
established, and what would be the Iejuit ?
Foreign goods would be poured in upon us in
such quantities, and NJ such prices, that our
homo manufacturers would bc oblfged to
stop work, and q million cf mech 4nics com-
pelled to turntheir attention to raising wheat,
or tone other raw material that could b.:
shipped to Europe; aud in some seasons, Us
hefei o&orc, the Price of wheat IN England
would rot more Than pay the cost Of trans-
po.tatIon from Illinois to that uiaaket.
Goods would be very cheap, but farmers
would have no money to buy ,th=m with.
They would be in the came condition that
many Western farmers were twenty years
tago, when THUR bins were flied with grain
which would not bring as much money Us It
would cost to haul it to market. Again,
look ut the probable effect of the free trade
upou our internal Improvements. No one
will deny that as q nstion We have internal
resources that are wholly 1neqnaled by those
OF any other nation. We have within the
limits Of the United States II IRE and richer
p,airiee, more gold m:nea, more iron orc,
more coal, more timber, more water power,
and more inland water communication than
the whole of Europe combined, and the future
wealth Of our country depends upon the
amount Of labor that can be brought here to
develop these untold resources. But the real
property and happiness of the people will
depend upon the relative condition OF the ia-
boring classes. Il they arc allowed the I'd.
vantagcs Of education. and ofgaln{ng wealth,
as they hare been in the Northern States. we
eball enjoy degree Of prosperity unparallel-
cd IN the history Of nations.
Under protective tariff the price sof Ia,
Dor has always been two or three times as
high here as in Europe. But let free trade
be- established auti 1t will eventually fall to q
level with that Of England, and our laboIers
be reduced to the condition Of the English
operatives.
James Buchanan once said that the average
| price OF labor, throughout the world, ex
ceptipg the United States, was about ter
ceEts dny, and that the time would cont
when it would be no more than that in this
country.
Under his free trade and pro-slayery policy
| that time might have come. But under {
| universal freedom and protective tariff VIZ
/ may reasonably expect tnatit never will:
| J. n.
| ChErA I'LL. March O., 1855.