New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-08

seaboard, where their surplus is consumed or
thence exported to Europe! What uds the
drift of that article if this was notf And
did you not hail it as calculated to per-
suade the farmers to condemn and op-
pose, not merely a single feature OF the
Protective policy, but the whole OF III
Judge yc between us and The Times. we I'M
peach the honesty, the manliness OF its cause
on this subject, and appeal to the judgment OF
our lifelong adversaries-those who are
neither afraid nor ashamed to be known as
Free Traders, and propose to fight the battle
in their proper uniform.
But let The Times restate its position.
in our recent article, and to which that journal re-
plies, We showed that, owing to the Revenue laws tho
ordinary grades OF steel cost in this country eghy
por cent more than the price paid to tho maker abroad
that 40 far ms this article concerned the cost OF build
ing and GENERATING on railroads is Increased in Ike rato
and that by necessary consequence, by reducing the
duties and with them the cost Of transportation We
shall be able equal degree to increase the prohs Oh
the articles carried All this is matter OF mathematical
calculation and so far, we are sad 10 SEQ 'nerc no
difference between u.s."
Ans,cer by The Tribane.-O yes, Sir; there Is
great difference between us-vcry great indeed.
You assume that our people are now paying
sc Der cent. more for Steel than if there were
no duty upon it; we deny it, and point to the
facts, I. That Bessemer Steel Rails are far
cheaper with us to-day than they were before
we began (under Protection to make them-a
reduction in cost which we attribute IN part TO
the reduced cost of making them IN England,
but in part, also, to the fact that they nuS' DC
sold cheaper here because OF American com
petition; 3 We point to the recorded fact
that. when our duties on Iron were consider
ably enhanced by the Protective farm OF
1928, the price of Iron was not only reduced
during the next year (lS29,) but it was reduced
most considerably in the West, where home
production was most, and importation least
potent: g. That q British iron exporting
firm. in a circular which we published few
weeks since, informed its customers that the
hope of securing higher prices for their Iron
this year than last, rested on the probability of
a reduction in the American tariff: in other
words, as our duties were reduced, their prices
were to be advanced. We might multiply
these facts; but the above will suffice to prove
that there is "dificrence"-grave difference
-betwcen us and The Times in the premises
that journal resting in the habitual assump-
tions of Free-Traders, which we hold baseess
and erroneous. We believe that, taking
the whole body of our people, and
not merely those residing on the seaboard,
they are this day supplied with Metals, Wares,
and Fabrics, at lower average money prices
than they would be if we had never imposed
a duty on them, whether for Revenue or Pro-
lection. We hold that the cost of importation
would be far higher in that case than now
that the Two Millions of tuns of Iron we now
produce at home could not be drawn from
Europe without carrying up the price there.
and so increasing the scOst here. And so OF
other Metals, as of Wares and Fabrics generally.
But even this is mot the most important
considerations We hold that any considerable
increase of our annual imports, necesstatlng
corresponding increase of our exports, would
disastrously reduce the prices of our Agricul-
tural staples. This truth is now exempliied In
the instance of Wheat. We have exported
considerably more of this staple during tho
last six months than formerly; and the con-
sequence has been disastrous decline in its
price abroad IGacting upon and prOstratlng
our farmers market generally. Had We made
here One Hundred Millions worth of the
Metals, Wares, and Fabrics we imported in
1869, we should have thereupon exported little
or no Wheat to Great Britain, and our Wheat
growers in the Northwest would have re-
ceived nearly double the prices xactually paid
them for their grain.
The Times does not help its case by affecting
to understand us as insisting that the wheat
growers shall abandon their farms and betake
themselves to making Iron, Cloth, Cutlery,
&c, &c. 1t knows great deal better. Within
Az Loo dor no inn lsa atfp ed
by Protective duties, very large and excellent
furnaces, roling-mills, &c, have been erected
in Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and
Missouri-as more will be if Protection shall
be firmly upheld-yet no person who prefers
farming has been constrained to make Iron or
Wares. On the contrary. these establishments,
by winning away from Europe thousands of
skillful artisans, with their families and setting
to work tens of thousands of laborers in coal
mines, Ore-beds, lime quarries, wOOl-cOllieIies,
&C., &C., have created a large, steady, and
rapidly expanding market for the products OF
Western agriculture, and thus melted farmers
to persist in their own vocation rather than
abandon it.
Nor is it true that The TRIBUNE advocates
the restriction of our people to the products OF
our own soil, or is ObliviOus of, or Indifferent
TO the laws of Climate, &c, and their obvious
dictates. Over and again have we stated that
we do not desire the exclusion from our ports
of Coffee, Cocoa, CaoutchOuc, or any thing else
which Nature has debarred us from producing,
save at an expense of many times the labor
required for their production elsewhere. On
the contrary, we advocate the home production
of our Iron because God has seen fit to plant
the Ore, Coal, Lime &c, in our own SOIL and
mo ,,ust boI;ova tbop, nloccd borp NOT en- much