New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-05-02

/ =
Erofbcrs d Co. but il was not much of an agency after
an for / actually purchased their steel, most 81 the
Aclu,ive sale IN Pittsburgh. The next umc please IN
0ure OF these gentlemen II did not always pay them
lions 10 tem except those resulting from very pleasant
and friendly business intercourse OF many years stand
ing. Aud now, Mr. Atkinson have endcavored to take
your advice, To use plain English That pam man
Ike myself can understand" IN return allow me once
who assume 70 instruct oihers pray You 40 iy ana
be more accurate. JAMES VI. COOPER.
FiaSJ@gH, April 81. 1872.
ANOTHER LETTER FROM MR.. ATKINSON.
A FREE TRADERS PLEA FOR TIE REMOVAL OF
THE DUTY On PIG IRON-II5 SUPPoS1rIONo
REGARDING TIE CONSEQUENT EFFECT On
WAGES.
TO the EditOr OF The Tribune.
SIR: Your courtesy in printing my letter to
Mr. j. H. Cooper although must have been obnoxious
to you gives Inc the opportunity to contest some OF the
statements made in your comments thereon and tins
shall gladly do In manner GttiDg to scientific
discussion than could adopt in replying to personal
charge by MI Co. which would have exposed me to
the charge Of having mTeprescned some valued friend
had not repealed it, You acge hat my capital error,
and that advocates of Free Trade is that since
the homemade Iron and steel cost than the nl
ported by the amount If the duty charged the latter
it follows that we should obtain all our Iron ana
Steel so much cheaper If the duty were taken Of"
Permit mo to say that make no such general and
broad assertion. sch not always the benefit OF an
Of duty. LEI me take Tie single 9rcle of
Pc for clearness OF illustrations we DO make aDOut
"a relatively higher IN his country than in England, and
we aego that this relative difference - caused ny ue
duty of 81 per un thereon whatever the absolute price
NAV be. If this duty were removed, tho Government
would lose n certain amount OF revenue which IL can
well snare and we Freely admit that the people or the
consumers OF Pig Iron would not at once gain the same
amount in the price OF IRON on me coaIlny' we ats
reno Of N IRON in Great Biain of m equal
I an
reoycd tomorroy there would be an immediate rise Of
g. per tun in Great Britain; and It is upon this
ground that would most s'rcnuou.y advocate such an
abatement of the duty because it being the lacL that
one making it, tho moment You eqpalize the cost OF
Great Britain which greater natural resources ought
to give US f9 nov pG e cost S Of ron the
and you would then protect ten without mary TO tne
YOU have NO preeXt for Protection to Iron here You
NAV say would ut increase her product but we
pacty OF all the Tailnills of Great Britain Is barely
equal to consumpton ana che has not the labor for
changed to iron-workor in a day.
the reason that Great Britain cannot possibly increase
her supply Iron 10 meet any materially arger proper
3ned at G9ngeTors and costly depth; her supply Of
some OF the most kinds OF Iron ore - nearly eN
hnusted and, most important OF ALL her supply OF labor
fitted Tor iron-making is worked TO It's utmost
wages are rising with great Tapidy, and any advance
in the price OF Iron would inevitably be at once ABSORBED
i'm an advance in wages fully equal thereto. An mc.
dental benefit TO Us from such an advance in WAGES
would be an increased demand Tor our Beer, our
pork ana our Grain. But the great benefit
to us, and the paramount reason Tor ior tho
gagged In making Pg Iron, IN comparison 10 inc loree
enged in using ion efeT III s' n SG 6 0 " co
siderton whether the price OF Pig iron ne aSoutey
high or low, that nation which his us supply relatively
lowest at gwen date viii have the advantage III its :e
WHY iron ships bnilt on the Cyde ana nor on we
Delaware for seryicel Because tho clyde spDud
imposed by u.s. the siPbuldeTs on the Delaware,
whatever the respective prices NAV be-
Why does Great Britain export machinery to all parts
of the world even the United States and we almost
or at given time, her relative price OF llg IRON Is al
ways lower than ours by the amount OF the duty ana
EYclsb ship-bniidcr ana inachinist
by means Of duty on Pig IRON You cannot increase
tie general supply Of Iron by statute You can only
alter the position and distribution OF TIC labor upon H.
The actual prices OF Iron WI be eenroIed ny ne gen
relative prices OF specific countries may and DO depend
norf any large prOpOrtiOn of Iron, long viii the
duty put relative disadvantage with Great Bri
| prces are lower than those of Great Britain and
import none, then Of course no duty VIII be demanded
by any one, and If imposed will DO Of no effect Qke
the existing duty asses skins, which Is imperative
because the home production Is ample) You claim Pro-
lection to Iron because wages are highs but the stan
ard of wages is fixed in unprotected industries which
| are as ten 10 one projected.
1t may be that the duty promotes larger product OF
Iron here and less abroad although we contest even
tms but it retards diversity of employment, because It
prevents US from making Things OF iron Ior export
which should otherwise make II restricts the home
market Tor farm PRODUCTS because Wncre III creates one
customer in mine or an iron furnace, prevents the
| employment OF two men in shipbWlding machine
building, toolmakng, or some other use or IRON me
force employed In making Pig lrOn that 49, III mining
coal for irOn in mining irQn and in working blast Iur-
naces cannot exceed 10000 men In all the United Sates
for the simple that tue whole value or inc rig
Iron produced, which i only Onehrd the value OF our
Butter and Cheese product, will not pay larger force
at the average rate OF wages How many persons use
| Iron in the United Statesi
Now Sir you speak of the need OF guaranty against
the unequal competition with the cheaper labor OF
Great Britain" III this you assume that because wages
are somewhat lower in Great Britain labor Is therefore
cheaper II does not follow Can VIC not pay higher
wages for Quarrying iron ore from hillside III the open
mir as IN the Lebanon Valley, night upon platform car
than can paid for mining III Great Britain In mine
hundred feet deepf Can We not pay more 10 inc
man who picks out coal from vein on the size OF NIL
40 Inclined the coal dumps ITSELF by lts own gravity,
right into the mouth of the furnace. at Johnto
also dumps Itself out OF an0tner nn anu
the ux out OF another than can DC PAID IN Great BTU
| ain for working coal mine 100 rect ueept - ., :,
Cannot Indiana pay twice or thrice the wages paid ID
Wales or Scotland rather than To pay the cost vi nrst
hosting up and coal fom depth OF 1000 to 1000 feet
aud then paying SIS 10 $40 per tun freight on the iron or
the rails, Tor the simple that her BLOCK CO IL
right under the surface and her ore is close at hand
You allege that We by agitation, alarm ctptasts
and prevent investment In ron-works We reply mat
SSa be Kept down. when Great b Te tbs
and attempted TO prevent thb working Of iron mines,
| and tho establishment OF rolling and Sitting
l. st dependent Upon iegIssii6n for It's support~sti
an infant Moreover, VIC affirm that the capitalist who
should invest IN an enterprise, dependent upon legisa
tive support not only for its establishment but for is
he bought stock In THE NEw-foRK TRIBUNE with the
D taon of profit from the patronage OF tie present
Administration In general we Free Traders affirm that
IT, ny means OF Protection you DO over promote lower
price for specific article, y0u do IL at such cnst mat
| tLe process EDWARD ATKINSON f
| ~ - n, to-a