Year: 1872

l.


eoths from $500 TO $500 per yard in
duce our farmers and the great mass of


oar working people, to buy them in


sead of that of our own manufacture.


which can now be had at seventy-five
q eighty per cent. less? Not bit Of


j. The pr, position is perfectly alb


sard. Then, says the Tribune, why is


the tariff placed on foreign goods if it is


rot to protect the American manufac-


tlrer, that is, enable him to sell his


goods at higher prices than ne could do.


iiforeign goods were allowed to come
ia free of duty. The mistake here
made is common one with free


traders. They with eyes blindfolded,


imagine that all tarifflevies are wholly
for protection. when a little investiga-
tion would show them their error
fThe tariff on tea, on coffee, ON indigo,


on spices, on nearly all the luxuries,


including fine cloths, silks and other
similar fabrics is not for protection but
for REVENUE; it is direct tax there
fore upon extravaganza, and useless


luxury which only affects those who
see fit to indulge in these unnecessary
importations. The use of coffee and
tea, however. of late years, has become
sogeneral that it is thought best to re-
move the duty from these, and let it
remain on the Others mentioned above,
and this movement is what the Tribune
objected to. We submit that the course
suggested is eminently proper, and we
shall continue to advocate the removal
of all tax on necessary articles and
place it on the luXuries.


We will not stop to refute the T1i-
6a1e's tables, tending to show the ad-
ditiOnal cost of articles in this country,
made necessary by the duty, as it is not
at all pertinent TO the argument. We
win only add that if one toW have a
suit of ''Scotch Tweed" he can obtain
it at $26, (instead of $40, as the Tribune
has it, notwithstanding he can pur-
chase suit of "American Tweed" at
ten dollars less, orabout the price of a
suit of the Scotch gods in Scotland.
The additional charge goes to support
the government, and is paid by those
who prefer the Scotch goods, to our
manufacture. Is there anything wrong
in that? ''4'a'


Again, the Tribune quotes foreign
prints at 20 cents per yard wholesale,
owing to the sixty-tive per cent. duty.
American prints, just as good, can be
bought in any leading market in this
country at from ten to thirteen cents
per yard; but if people aCiUhdue the for
eign article, we say let them pay for it
Does this system hurt the poor man
can any 9iseohjee.=toi TO it9--=---z-z--z- it


The Tribune adds:


The worlmen of Pittsburgh pay in
addition to the real cost of their cloth
ing and bedding, from 40 to so per
cent. tax, and that too, though they
never purchase an article of foreign
manufacture. 1t is to compel them to
pay this tax, to eXtOrt from them this
bounty for private individuals, that the
present tariff was constructed, and is so
maintained.


We would like to know how this
can be true, when we have shown that
the price of two of the leading articles
of clothing (and the same is true of 9TH
ers, where we compete with Europe) in
this country, of our own manufacture
is as low, or lower than the foreign ar
ticle is in the land where it is made. Is
the European manufacturer foolish
enough to bring his golds to our mar
kets and sell them for less than he can
get for them at home? And yet, ifthe
Tribune is correct he must do this. Ac-
cording to that Journals tables the
American article sells here for as little
as, or less than the foreign fabric does
where it is made. Wherein then do
the work men of Pittsburgh nay 40 to
so per cent. more for their clothing and
bedding than they would if the tariff
were abolished. We cannot see it, and
it cannot be proven from the tables.


Again, take blankets-the price ofthe
Americans, 80 per pair, the price ofthe
English, in England s2,5O-the same.
One is made from wool, raised by our
own farmers, made at home by our own
who have to eat the grain
grown in our own fields. The other is
a foreign product exclusively-made
by people whom we are in nowise
bound to support or traffic with, and it
is therefore taxed by the government.
Ifthe people ,0W buy the foreign arti-
Gle in preference to that made at home,
let them pay the duty required of the
foreign manufacturer for the privilege
of selling his goods in this country. To
those who do not choose to do that, our
goods are at their service, at the same
price that people in. England are
oblidged to pay.


Now who pays the tariff duties-the
or the would-be nabob,
for whom nothing made in America is
good enough? The case is plain one;
and we leave our generous free-trade
cotemporary to again attempt to mystify
il, by extraneous and irrelevant soph-
Pitts5i0g hGdzette.


Mr. Fields, of Boston, rather turned
the table on would-be.joker on one
The author fan inprovised