New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-01


than the far higher duty actually charged
We approve and sustain the higher duty, not
on the assumption that it puts more money
into the Federal Treasury, but because II
secures more work and better wages TO our
| countrymen and women who i've ny making
| clothes. This, and not revenue, Is tne reason
for imposing 40 high duty.
Certainly. we believe that, in the large view,
tho high duty now imposed on the importa-
ton of Ready Made Clothing does increase the
Federal Revenue, though not the receipts from
this immediate source. 1t increases that Rev
enue by securing work and wages to many
tens of thousands Of our people who, in its all
sencc, would DO doomed to idlencss and PEN
ury by the Cutting of our markets with for
eign-made garments, the product of low
priced European labor. We have not doubt
that our high Protective duty on Ready-Made
Clothing does thus contribute to the repenish-
ment of the Federal Treasury-bnt not Ill the
way contemplated by Mr.. MTshalrs reSo-
luton. |
Let "a further illustrate the radical differ
ence between Protection and Free Trade by
a ready example Take the four important
orlicles--lron, Sugar, Wool, Coffee A Free
Trader would naturally impose the highest
duty on Coifoe, because it is wholly imported,
and all Che money paid by reason of chat duty
would Che says) go into the Treasury. lie
would put q lower duty on Sugar, because we
| produce a part of our own sweetcnlng," ana
to that extest (he holds) the duty would put
money into We pockets of our monOpolsts
growing cane in Louisiana, sOrgho in Iowa,
or tapping mape-trees in Vermont and Wiscon-
sin and he would impose still lower duties on
Wool and Iron, because higher duties on those
sfap!es would serve (he thinks) to put more
| money into the pockets of our sheep-Drceders
| and orc-smelters than into the Treasury. AS
he regards the matter, tho Government, by
higher duty, would put three or four dollars
into the plcthoric pockets of our wOOl-growcrs
and iron-makers for every one that it got
| into the Treasury.
We would levy duties on principle exactly
| opposito 10 tho rce-TradcrS Believing 1t
| desirable per Sc that the number Of our indus
trial pursuits be enlarged, that those which
| are threatened with overthrow by foreign
| competition be sustained and fortified, that
, those which are prosecuted among us to the
| extent of only partially satisfying our own
wants be developed and expanded, and that
still Others loo naturazed and fOstered we
would put a stiff Protective duty on imported
Iron, one nearly as high on Wool and its
products, ono considerably lower on Sugar
| because our country scems not so well
adapted to extensive Sugar production as the
| islands which lie a little south of us), and
either low revenue duty or mono at all on
! Coffee Need of revenue might constrain us
to raise this to a high figure; but we should
10 this with fixed intent to reduce it as fast
and a. far IA possible.
Such, as clearly as wo can state it, ia the
difference between Protection and Free-Tradc
| 1t is just IA marked under necessity for rails
ing very large revenue as VIXEN but small
one is reduired The first Tariff ever framed
by Federal Congress imposed none but very
moderate duties. yet it was mcontestably Pro-
| tcctiye in its provisions, and in its preamble
affirmed tho necessity and expediency of pro-
| tocting Manufactures. AT present, some Boot
and Shoe manufacturers seek additional Pro-
lection for their industry by repeal of the
| ten per cent. duty now imposed on foreign
| Hides. Mr.. Edward Harris, an extensive
Wooden manufacturer. asks Protection by the
repeal of the present duties on Wool and Coal
and is willing to pay for it through reduced
impost on Wooden fabrics. And ii il generally
| true that our producers of almost any ware or
fabric could get on with u lower Protection
| if every material used by them were admitted
! free OF duty.
| He. then, who babbles of "a high Protective
"Tarif" Gas if the rate, and not the principle,
were tho bone of cOntentiOn). or who sagey
| dcmurs that the Tariff is not i'll issue, because
| tho needs of our Government are SO great
| that we must have high Tariff, maunders
| foolishy The vital question is this" Ould
"y0u, or would you not, levy and adjust du-
ties on Imports. with intent to encourage
and protect Home Industry 7" If you would
| you arc a Protectionist, though you favor no
duty higher than twenty per cent. And The
| World knows better than to say that "Tho
Russian duty on Rails is so light as not to
be worth mentioning in comparison with our
Gown n--as though that refutod our statement
that Russia chcrishes the policy of Protection.
| 1t practices tho obtuseness OF its readers.
| 1t is far more faithful to its principle when
! lin another article) it says:
"Thers is only ons mode OF reconciliDg tho require
nsn. Of principle with the necessity OF government
wiz By plqcng high duties upon articles which cannot be
gro,cn m the Unikd States 90 any eflent and which there
forc be protected by these dne. All protective
duties 10 bo condemned not only because they tax
the consumer for tho benefit OF individuals but also be-
they diminish the revenues of the nation. For It
that II the stimulus of protective duties
article TO be produced at home which, In their alb
snce would 10 imported from abroad, duties which in
tho would he collected viii, under the former
DO lost Tho only be protected by the abo-
OF an tariff tax otherwise than those imposed upon
| articles Of e~hsicely foreign origin"
That statement makes clear, square issue
and Oh that we are ready to go to the people.
----------------