Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-01-25
.prntection and The South. !.

tariff question, and, as was predicted OF
that paper when the recent change in its
management and editorial conduct was
first made. it favors protection. Its new
editor sees ftto take exception at an article
which appeared in these columns recent
" under the above heading, and rashly
prOnounces free trade-a doctrine be 1t
remembered which has always had among
its advocates some of the greatest
minds. ablest writers and most careful
students of political economy in the
world-''the accidental offspring of igno-
rance and insanity" Then, having thus,
with the mere stroke of his able pen.
annihilated the British nation John c.
Calhoun. Hon. David A. Wells, John
Stuart Mil, Professor Perry, of VIII
liams College, Massachusetts; Professor
W. G. Sumner, of Yale Col
lege; Right Hon. Richard Golden, of
England: Frederic Bastiat, of France,
and host Of others. to whom the world
accords the homage due to genius and
gigantic intellect-even if they are, in
the opinion of the new editor of the
Telegraph, ignoramuses and lunatics-
he proceeds to endeavol to annihilate US
also with a weak and miserably strained
effort at whitening q sarcasm.
Pursuing this plan, he quotes at great
| Ill, g., 81, ,,-+;o1o q ~v-a o1lY1dad IN
in which we made mention of the fact
that recently Macon cotton firm sent
samples of their cotton yarns to Hon.
John Bright, of England also regarded
by the world as a man at least equal in
intellect to the brilliant editor of the
Telegraph, but that they had been IT.
formed in reply by that eminent apostle
Of free trade that no market could be
obtained for their yarns in England, be-
cause they were too high priced for
English consumers to purchase. This,
we claimed, was "a home thrust argu-
ment against protection" and we pro
ceeded clearly to make good that claim,
although the writer in the Telegraph so
cruelty says we neglected even to men
ton said home thrust argument"
We may have been unfortunate in not
having made our remarks sufficiently
plain to be understood by our rash, but
SARCASTIC" contemporary, and, for its
benefit, we will restate what has been
50 Obhgingly quoted in its columns, al
though which, if read at all, was evil
/ IDENTIFY not read with a desire for en-
lightenment on a subject upon which it
is in manifest ignorance. We
stated that it is absurd to say
that the South, possessing as she
does. undisputed advantages over the
world for the manufacture Of cotton,
could not, in a free fight, successfully
underseI the world, and the only reason
she cannot do so now is because of a
protective tariff. 1t IS through prOtec-
/ ton that the Southern manufacturer Is
forced to pay artiicially high prices for
his machinery (which is a very necessary
factor in cotton manufacturing, though
our Macon contemporary seems to think
differently; it is through protection that
w0rkmen in our cotton factories have to
pay extortionate prices for their blankets,
their clothing and other necessaries of
life, thereby necessitatingt that they should
he paid apparently" higher wages than
their British brethren, and it is, thus,
through protection that the Southern
manufacturer, being forced to undue
| expense in the conduct of his business, is
therefore forced to charge unnecessarily
high prices for his wares to derive
profit therefrom. If this is not conclusive
proof that the South is debarred by pro-
lection from enjoying the advantages
which are hers by nature, while both
Old and New England can successfully
| compete with her, we would like to know
what is, and we hope that it is, this time,
sufficiently plainly expressed to come
within the intellectual grasp of even our
Macon contemporary.
This, however, is not the only argu
ment which we have advanced against
protection at different times. There is
another, which, as our contemporary
itself suggests it, we will repeat. it is
this: that the effect of protection is
to heavily tax the masses of the people
and make them pay tribute to monopoly
by forcing them to buy many articles of
prime necessity at whatever prices the
protected mOnOpOlist may see fit to
ask, and that in this, not the govern
ment, but the monopolist alone, is
| benefited. This we also regard as a
''hOme thrust, and we are
very glad our sapient contem-
porary has furnished a verifcation
of its directness in its own columns.
Proceeding its strained effort 1t naivelY
'gives itself away" by saying that in
1860. the year previous to the adoption
of the tariff, our revenue was $50 49,
511, and our imports were greater than
our exports by $2O,04O,O62. Under the
tariff in 1881 our revenue was $19S, 49,
GO and our exports were greater than
our imports by $3.50; 726. 254." If these
figures are correct our position is by
them conclusivelY justified. Our con-
temporary, it will be seen, admits that
since TIE adoption of the protective
tariff our imports have fallen off ire
mendOusly Now, what does that shown
Simply, as we have stated, that the
government Is cut off by protection from
receiving customs dues through the pre-
vention of imports, and that money
which should thus be received, both as
revenue to the government. and as relief
to the taxpayers, goes only into thepock-
cts of protected mOnopolists. Under
these circumstances, it is no evidence of
prosperity that our revenue has been
great despite protection, but it is rather
evidence that the masses are so much the
more burdened with taxes, since they,
besides having to support monopoly,
have also to make up to the government
the losses entailed by its being deprived
of or,ston, duec fhrough nrOtectiOn