New-York tribune., 1868-05-12

the Doctrines attributed to them in the above
extra,t. We concede that the tax on every in
dividUal article which, Notwithstanding the
tariff, is imported, is paid by the consumer,
and We admit that neither the American con
sumer nor producer are protected in that in
stance and as to that thing. SO far we are
ag,eed. This is all there is of the argument of
Free Trade. But, since PrOtectionists do not
dispute any of these positions, let us see what
they believe. They believe that to sustain
government taxes must be levied somewhere,
and that if they are levied equally nothing
can ask to be wholly free from taxation. Ihey
do not expect free industry, and do not see now
there can be free trade. Of the articles which
must be consumed here, some can be produced
in this country and others cannot. Protection
ists are in favor of admitting the latter free OF
duty, and of imposing such tariff on the former
as shall diminish the importation of them from
abroad, rather than such an Internal-Revenue
tax as shall lessen their production at home
So far as the tariff on the imported article ex-
cludes it, or causes the American article to be
used in its stead the tariff is protective in its
principle. So far as it admits the article ana
il is sold, nobody is protected-it results III
revenue but not in protection. Suppose the
cost of producing American Iron to be $50 per
tun, and that of Foreign Iron to be $40. A
tariff of, $1S is imposed, making the cost OF
importing the Foreign $5S. The Protective
principle has not been applied, for just as
much Foreign Iron in proportion to the
American is consumed as before. The
Importation is not checked; the American
consumer gets dearer Iron, but the Ameri-
can producer is not benefited until ne can
reduce his cost of production lower than
the foreign, with tariff added. Such tariff is
for revenue merely. Suppose, however, the
tariff is raised to $25 per tun; here is 80 pro-
| lection to the manufacturer (Other things re-
naming equaD, and no forthwith begins to
supply a portion of the Iron previously sup
plied from abroad. On the portion thus ex-
cluded from importation and supplied by the
| American manufacturer there is no revenue
| but there is protection. On the portion which,
in spite of the tariff, is still supplied by the
foreign manufacturer, there is no protection
but there is revenue. If the importation were
formerly 100000 tuns, and the tariff causes
100000 tuns to be made here instead, there
is revenue on the 10000 tuns still imported
and protection to the American manufacture
10 the extent of the $4,000 which by the tarif
he is enabled to produce and sell at paying
proft. Whether this is wise or not we are no
now arguing We are only trying to explain
10 our Chicago cOtemporary what protection is
The fact that a thing is imported and pay'
revenue, proves that the American producer
has not been protected as to that article, il
that instance. The fact that an article which
would otherwise have been imported has beer
produced in America because ot the tariff, il
proof that the American Producer was pro
tected in that instance. q tariff produces rev
enue on the goods from the importation o.
which it fails TO protect the American market
and protection on the goods which it causes t.
be produced here Hence The Chicago Tribun'
will perceive that it has wholly miscOnceiyeC
what it is that Protectionists believe.