New-York tribune., 1866-12-07

OF Zinc or Plumbago, or Nickel. in our country. and
that this mine belongs TO an individual or company:
it might be fairy urged that high duty on inn
ported Zinc Plumbago, or Nickel, Gas The case may
be) would create gainful monopoly for the benefit
Of that person company. In other words, it would
enable the owner or owners Of that mine to sell thor
product (wilhn certain lmits) at their own price.
Now let us suppose Congress should impose pro-
hbitoy duly-say 500 and upward per tun-on all
imported Iron (or instanoe) would any such result
be produced What would thenceforth regulate and
govern the cost Of Iron to our consumers At Grst,
for very short time, there would be deficient sup
ply Of Iron and consequent enhancement Of its price,
But would not this fact inevitably instantly stimu
late and insure an increased home production Of Iron'
Here are bown-out furnaces all over the land. stand
ing idle because they cannot be run OF proGt-wOuid
not an increase Of s. per tun put many Of these
at once into blast again And If the price
were enhanced $40, SIS. or $50 per tun. who does
not know that more, and still more. OF them would
be set to work and that new works would be erected
whenever Ore, Coal, and Lime could be conveniently
brought together giving employment TO tens OF thou
sandsofblasters choppers, masons quaymen. furnace
men, &C., &c. Who that ever read page or thought
hour the subject does not know that this process
of erecting now iron works aud reyviBg those now
disused would 90 80 long iron could be made
at profit or until the profit Of this pursuit had been
reduced to tho average profit Of business in gencrai'
Is there any possible demur TO this statement Are
not the elements Of Iron production abundant, widely
diffased. and practically inoxbsustibe' Let US
suppose all ProtectOniss stod so ignorant that
they would persist in using their capital where 1t
would yield them little nothing. when they might
make % to so per cent. by employing it in Iron
making, would not Free Traders eyince more common
sense IL they now decline to invest in Iron
making. is it not for the precise reason
that they can do better-that is make more
in some other vocation And will they not rush into
on-makng whenever they shall find this more profit
able than their present pursuits Nay would not
the very Britons who are now making Iron for our
market in the st-anchored isle" come (or send)
over and make it here If they could thus secure
larger profit than by making il who're they now do'
Is there any answer to this statement of the case
IL So what is ii And if not what reason or sense s
there in Mr. McCulloch's bugbear Of building up
home monopOlesi" If what he says is the sheer bald
papable fallacy to u.s. is it not discredable
TO our country that its highest financial officer should
presume to utter it
That ." free exchange Of, commodities ia tho
life of commerce" We have been hearing from Free
Traders these forty years during which every Pro-
tective Tariff has been confronted by Ths Ereaing
Post and its echoes with predictions that our Com
merce would be ruined and our Revenue dried up by
its enactment We have heretofore reprinted those
propheses and conras.ed them with the actual returns
of both Commerce and Revenue accruing under those
very Tariffs Of 1924 1928, 1872 and 1861. which The
Post & Co. asserted would destroy both Commerce
and Revenue There are many countries which have
Systematically ignored or rejected protecton-Portu-
gal, Turkey, Italy, Brazil for instance-snd We in
vite a comparison between their Commerce and ours,
especially in those years when Protection was
here in the ascendant Mr.. McCulloch's
assertions cannot outweigh the statistics
Of all nations treasury departments, our own in
cuded We dare the Secretary TO compile and pre-
sent tabular expose Of our Commerce aud Revenue
under Protection and Free Trade respectively. Such
a table fairly made up, would be more instructive
and more valuable than volume Of naked and oft-re'
futed assertions. d. q.