The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-05-23
S. G..
Thursday Morning. May %, 1872.
Protection to Home Industry.

Protection to Home Industry.
The Union gave its readers column
article yesterday. under the above head
ing. The Democratic press of the South,
the Union graoiously comedies, may be
sincere in advocating free trade; but
"these editors" it says, 'are fundamen-
tally wrong; they do not bring forward
facts and figures which affect us here in
this State" We failed to find any such
in the article Of the Union. Facts end
figures have indeed been drought for
ward" by the Union and those Of its way
Of thinking, which have ''affected as
here in this State" terribly; but they do
not happen to have protected "home in
dustries'' "to any great extent" We
trust the Union will pardon our flying
the track little. Whenever anything is
said about figures, our mind turns ire
sistibly to the millions which. we may
say. and not speak fguratively, have
been added to the former small debt of
the State, without even the plea OF pro-
teotion to excuse it. But let us to the
subject properly under discussion.
We object. in the first place. to the
title which the Union has given its
article. "Protection to home indus-
tries" q hackneyed catch phrase, and
utterly false when applied to protec-
tive tariff. It is an error, to begin with.
and, therefore, we protest against its use.
OF course, everybody would like to have
''proteotion to home industries" We
will go further than the Union in that
direction, and say protect everything,
even the public purse; and everybody,
even the Union man, If ne will only be-
have himself, and aid In the general
protection which all good men favor.
A protective tariff protects, if anything.
only one branch of ndustry-manufac-
tures. The chief, and almost the sole
branch Of productive industry with Gus
here in this State, }" is agriculture. When
the Union or any advocate of high tariff
concocts some scheme to protect and
foster the growth Of agriculture, upon
which the wealth and welfare Of every
nation is almost solely dependent. then,
and not till then, there may be some
qualification for the false phrase-pro-
teotion to home industries. We suggest
to the Union, as more correct term,
the substitution OF manufactures for in
dustries, so that the phrase will read
''protection to home manufactures" or
else that it make ''radical reconstruc-
ton" of the entire concern, and call it
''the forced growth Of manufacturers, +"
which expresses the idea with still
greater exaotness. We object. in the
second place, to this forced growth of
manufactures" for the reason that it
can only be accomplished at the expense
of all other interests, and especially at
that Of the main stay and prop of the
County agriculture.
This is both unwise and unjust We
will give an illustration that should COM
mend itself to the sympathies of the
political philosopher of the Union.
Suppose. and We beg to state here that
it is entirely suppositious case-sup-
pose, we say. that some poor. hard-work-
ing creature OF the fifteenth amendment
has actually received his "titles clear" to
the imaginary forty acres and a mule,
which have SO often been held up to the
enchanted gaze of his crodulous race.
Then suppose that this poor, hard-work-
ing man needed hoe. as tillers of the
soil. generally do;, and suppose that this
hoe could be bought direct from England
for fifty cents, if there was no tariff, but
under the operation of "protection to
home industries" lis made to pay S1.25
for it to home manufacturer. Would
that be just. and is it wise so to cripple
the means Of the poor farmer? Why
should one OF the poor dear struggling
wards OF the nation be compelled to pay
a bonus of $50 per cent. to some wealthy
manufacturer like Mr.. Sprague? We
single him out because he, or his agent,
at Quv rpto dooe not caoo, - - l.: ~.