The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-01-12
A Historical Mistake.

trOm the Tribune.
The World assailing the present tariff and the
policy of protection, says:--
"Dnties cannot be lawfully levied merely to pro-
tect mammoth associations of capital in New Ing
land. Protection is but incident of the revenue
raising power; and the lncident cannot legally be
politicians, who make the interest OF manufacturers
thing Of paramount importance, rarely discuss
what rate of duty Will, on given article yield the
most money to the Treasury, but what rate will be
best for special private corporations"
We beg leave to correct our neighbor on a
vital point 'The Tribune school of politicians
does not 'make the interest OF manufacturers a
thing of paramount importance;n - nor does it
seek merely to protect mammoth associations of
capital in New England" On the contrary, we
learned our political economy from the essays
and letters OF Matthew Carey, Hezekiah Niles,
James Madison, and Andrew jackson, as also
nom the speeches OF Henry Clay, of Kentucky;
Tod, Sergeant, and Forward, of Pennsylvania;
Newton and Doddridge, of Virginia; Southland,
OF New Jersey; Henry r. Storrs and James
Tallmadge, of New York, ETC. etc. TO single
New Enelander Only-Rollin G. Mallory, OF Yer
mont-are we consciously indebted for any con-
hrmation OF those views. We learned to love
and cberish' the policy of protection while New
England was strongly adverse to it-whlle
Daniel Webster was speaking and voting against
it-and while but single Boston journal, the
Courier, was its advocate. Others have changed
--for the better or worse, as 1t may be-but our
views OF political economy have been matured
and strengthened, not essentially modified, by
the discussions and developments OF the last
thirty to forty years.
All this, manifestly does not prove them cor
rect; but it does expose the mean unveracty and
shallow knayery of such language as we quote
above from the World, and to which economists
OF ITS school are VIGOROUSLY prone. Why can't
some one OF them be shamed into the manly
seeming of taking up General Jackson's letter to
DR.. Coleman, for instance, and attempting TO
show wherein he was mistaken in arguing that
the interests OF agriculture were to be best sub
served nv nrOtpptiVp dutipe m i'm nd
tactures? His statement of the case is clear
direct, and positive; it covers the whole ground; ;
let us see the World for once quoteit and try to-
prove it fallacious. Such course might con-
vince some one OF the sincerity if not the sound
ness, OF our neighbor's inculcations; while the
supeTcilious hippancy of its current substitute
Tor argument can only harden conceit into
bigotry, and preclude investigation by dItfusing
the impression that the question has but one
side.
The great and wise men who laid the founda-
tons OF the protective policy among us could
not have been swerVed from the true line by
devotion to ''the interest OF manufacturersn or
OF especial private corporations" since those
had in their day no substantive existence among
us. We were nation OF cultivators, exporting
rude and bulky products wherewith to pay for
most OF the metals and fabrics we required. Of
course, we were poor, as purely agricultural ma
tiOns always are. Sometimes we found eager
markets and good prices for our surplus pro-
ducts; at other times we could scarcely give
them away; while in the best times a very large
share of their price was absorbed by the cost of
transit from producer to consumer. Our fathers
said, This is not the true:policy; we must diver
stiy our industry; we must cherish and natural
i2e manufactures, thereby securing permanent
markets and higher prices for our agricultural
products while increasing The intelligence, skill,
and efficiency of our labor
We unGoubtingly believe they were right in
this view, and that our country is this day im-
meDsey richer, more populous, moro intelligent,
more prosperous, than it would or could have
been had the counsels of such statesmen as
Hamilton, Clay, and Jackson been withheld
or disregarded Others-honestly, we doubt
not-hold the opposite view: but they have usu.
ally been estopped from fairly considering ours
by such calumnious abuse as we have quoted
from the World. We have studied their economic
philosophy, and believe we see exactly wherein
it is detective or mistaken. Tney have not
studied ours, because they began with the
assumption that we had and could have none
They will never comprehend us, because they
do not deem it worth while; but their selfcom
placency proyokes but tolerant smile, and theil
most studied insults cannot disturb our equa
nimity.