New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-07

not admit that II higher protecting duty were imposed
the supply Of foreign silk goods would be thrown into tho
hands Of the smugger. The question. them looking al
practically this In what degree Prohibition better
"a AGAINST smuggling than o weiLregulated dutyf by
which duty sufficient to protecthe British manu-
faefurer rhoa being high as 10 AFFORD premium 70
me smuogier-[Huskisson's Speeches, Vol H., p 300.
Smuggling was not wholly prevented, but
the manufacture fOurshed, with the usual
yicissitudes necessarily affecting the demand
for this article, down to 1860. In 1S45, Sir
Robert Peel reduced the duty on the foreign
manufacture to fifteen per cent, which reduc-
ton, as it turned out, the home manufacturers
were able to support. As all the silk manu-
featured i'm Great Britain is first imported in
the raw state, the impOrtatons of raw and
thrown silk are an accurate measure of the
growth of the home manufacture. These i'm
portatOns, previously to the abolition of the
prohibition, had reached an average of 1885,
600 pounds year of raw and thrown silks
for home consumption. In the three years
1889, 1910, and 1S41, after fifteen years OF
Protection, the average home consumption had
increased to 3,77S,1 61 pounds, having nearly
doubled In 1857, 1858, and 1859, the aver
age had again increased to 7,3S5,495 pounds,
having again nearly doubled
In 1860 the duties on foreign silks of every
kind were abolished and rih those duties the
prosperity of the British silk manufacturer came
10 an end. BY McCullOchs Commercial Die
tionary it appears that the average home con-
sumption of raw and thrown silk for the
seven years from 1861 to 1867, inclusive, had
fallen to 3,6t1 ,127 pounds, or more than one
half, and for the seven years from lSOo 10
1874, inclusive, it has not recovered, as APP
pears from the tables of exports and imports
in the Statistical Abstract" published by the
British Government. For the year 1873, the
last of which we have complete tables, the
home consumption of raw and thrown silk was
3.7I6.797 pounds. being less than it was in
the years 1889, 1910, and 1871. On the other
hand the impOrtatOns of silk manufactures,
under tariff which admits silks, velvets laces,
and ribbons duty free, and heavily taxes the
tea coffee, sugar, and tobacco OF the laborer,
have increased five fold 1t is not pretended
that silks were struggled to any extent under
the fifteen per cent duties established by Peel.
vet the total value of the silk goods imported
in the five years. 1855 10 1859, inclusive, did
not average two million pounds sterling year,
while for the seven years from 1865 to 1874,
inclusive, it has averaged ten millions, the re-
exports in each case being deducted.
We are ready at all times to accept Mr..
Huskisson's definition of ga wcll-regulated
"duty" 1t is the happy mean between
Prohibition and Monopoly on the one side, and
Free Trade and Ruin to the manufacturer on
the other We have shown that under "well-
CIRCULATED duties" which we take to be pretty
much the same thing az "judicous tariff"
the British silk manufacture tlourishcd, while
under complete Free Trade it has met with
severe reverse to use the mldest term.