New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-11-17
yHAT THE FREE-TRADERS PROPOSE.


The Evening Post insists that the free
Traders have been misrepresented as hostle 10
all Duties on Imports, whereas they are OPP
posed only to such as have Protection Tor their
object. But let us quote The Po'fS exact
words:
awe have not heard Of O single American freeIraae
who demands or desires expects TO secure at
absolute freedom OF commerce from restrictions on tue
contrary the eTraders, in their leagues IN the Jour
dresses and resolutions. which have been maae ana
adopted crowded meetings all over the u
tariff for revenue They acknowledge sne
necessity OF raising large revenue; ana .ney To tS
that trade shall be taxed to help III accomplishing 'n7
"what the FreoTraders demand is not as The Times
sayA and as the enemies Of free trade sometimes assert
absolute FreeTrade but tariff laid for revenue puT
poses only scheme OF duties on imports 30 asS
That the Government shall obtain the revenue u neeu
by duties on he smallest possible number OF articles
by duties arranged as to interfere as e as for
their success to large extent on cheap materia o Or
eign production. -, ,Ao ra,a,ua
system; we Revenue Reformers When py an ",y,
the debt Is paid. shall no doubt demand tDe aDoo
of custom houses and, In the meantime III any man Gun
contrive practical and simple system Of direct taxation
for this country we FreeTraders viii welcome that anu
urge the people to substitute Tor tne Poson VI ""'
other system of indirect taxation
Comments by The Tribune.
1t is the indisputable right of every party or
sect TO set forth its own dogmas-to define Its
own position. 1t has right to be glaringly
inconsistent, SO long as it remains honest.
Yet. when Prof. Perry was asked, at the close
of one of his Free-Trade addresses in our City,
/" How would you support the Government and
"pay it's Debt give understood him TO an
swer BY Tax on Incomes solely. However, let
us take The Posts authority as that OF an elder
if not better soldier, and consider where IL
places the Free-Traders.
We have always understood them as con-
tending in opposition to us, that duty or I'M
post on an imported article necessarily raises me
price TO our consumers, not merely that article,
but of any domestic product that comes IN conf
petition hereUith. They generally assume the
truth of this proposition as self-evident. And
they hold this increase of price to be a wrong to
Tho c0hsnmer and detriment to the COM
munity.
Now let us take the article of Iron for illus
tration, and suppose duty is levied on I'M
ported Iron (for revenue solely of twenty per
cent. Suppose that, under said duty, we I'M
mort twenty thousand tuns of Iron per anhum
and make at home eighty thousand. Call II
all worth $50 per tun, enhanced by this duty
to 500 per tun. The duty according TO Free
Trade assumptions) takes Ten Millions Of Dol.
lars out of tho pockets of tho consumers OF
from, gi7Ss sS,OOOOOO Of it arbitrarily to the
American Iron masters, and puts the odd g.
100000 into the Treasury Is that what you
call Political Economy
Our view is radically different from this We
believe our people are supplied with Iron
cheaper because of the duty on its importation
that, though they may pay more dollars, they
get their Iron for less labor, because they pay
for it really in Fruits, Vegetables, Fuel, Fodder,
&C., which they could not sell to Europe, and
which would not bring them nearly so much II
our Iron were made there. All this the Free
Traders scott at; but the point is not the
soundness of our doctrines, but the consistency
of their professions with their assumptions.
On what ground do they deem it wise or well
10 tax the consumers of Iron Ten Millions OF
Dollars In order to put Two Millions into the
Treasury Who will say7
Old women sometimes say of young one
that, if not married, she ought TO be. If we
believed in Free Trade at all, we should be
opposed to all Duties on Imports no matter
whether levied for Revenue or Protection.