onamehv, upholding oar commercial ma
ris; and maritime power. It is also a
b vjJ of prace wiih foreign nations, con
fcjtutirig a stronger preventive -of war
V!-n anT!i3 or TLivie?. fbrts ct rum anient?.
At present prices, our cotton crr-p will
yield an annual r""",:ct of 72,000,000f
and tne uianufaelured fcbric $5O4,GOO,G0,
urcLLing
Drcfi
equal, and can only be accomplised by
ad-valorem duties. As to fraudulent in
voices and undervaluation, these dangers
are believed to be arrested effectually by
the stringent provisions and severe penal
ty of the 17th section of the trrill of 1812;
and now one-half the revenue is collected
from ad-valorem duties.
At least two-thirds of the taxes impos
ed by the present tariff arc paid, not into
:mds
"horn
Lie working climes -ail
deeply
of
would be
injured bv any
disturbance, trrcwinj: out of a state of war,
to the direct and adequate jupply to raw
material. If our manufactures consume
40U.0C0 bales, it would cost thcin 612,
OOlU'00, whilst seilinff the manufactured
fabric for $81,000,000; and they should
be the hst to virile ia imposing heavy
taxes upon Jthat interest which supplies
lhern with ihe raw material cut of which
xhey realize such immense profits. Ac
companying the drawback of the duty on
coUcn-lWfing f hould be the repedof the
duty on foren cotton, wnu-ii i? mopcra
sh e and delusive, and not desired bv the
domenic produce,
The condition of our foreign relation,
it is said, should suspend the reduction of
the tariff. No American patriot can de
sire to arrest our onward career in peace
and proipcrity; but if unhappily, such
should be the result, it would create an
incr?ned necessity for reducing our pre
sent high draies, in order to obtain suffi
cient revenue to meet increased expendi
tures. The duties for the quarter, end-
ihe 30ih September, 1841, yielded $2,
OlljRSS 90 jere of revenue than the
smarter ending 30th September, 185
showing a very considerable decline of
ahe revenue, growing out ol a uimmined
importation of the tidily-protected arti-
,
clrs L"u
lomcst.!
hitie. tire becoming dead letters, except
for prohibition, and. if not reduced,
twill v.I; imaiely compel fheir advocates to
resort to direct taxation to support the go
vernment. In the event of war, nearly
ill the hiirh d-ities woild brcorne prohibi
tory, fr r.-iii the increased ri.-k and cost of
tmp'ortairms; and if there .be, indeed, in
' opinion of any, a serious danger of
sue;; an occurrence, it appeals most Stron
gly to their patriotism to impose the low
er, revenue duties on all article?, as the
on'iy means of securing, at such a period,
aut conviueraliciueome from the tariff.
The "Secretary here recommends that
the rate of duty on luxuries be fixed at the
highest rerenue standard, lie alleges
thai the protective system does not in
crease the wajes of labor that the sys
tem is to augment (lie profit of capital, and
not the wages of labor and that the re
sult of the system must be, in a series of
year?, as the power of manufacturing ca
pital is augmented from time, to time, to
bring the wages of labor under "its -control,
and ultimately ta reduce those wages, so
as to increase the pofit of capital. The
report continues;
broad tu thousands ol ! jjJP treasury,- but to the protected classes.
ccniulists, and wages to hundreds of thou-; The revenue from imports last year cx-
$ 1 A - A - . r n VH IT 1 1 1 1 C" AT
This, in itself, is a heavy tax; but the
whole tax imposed" wpon the people by
the present tariff is not less than eighty
one millions of dollars -of which twen-ty-scven
millions of dollars are paid to
the government upon the imports, and Ibr-ty-four
millions. to the protected classes,
in enhanced prices of similar domestic ar
ticles. In illustration of this position, it is al
leged that the duty is not paid by the for
eign producer, but by the consumer; and
that the duty constitutes as much a part of
the price as the cost of production.
The making of laws to increase the
profits of particular pursuits is opposed,
and the vie w taken that "legislation for
classes is against tho doctrine of equal
rights, and repugnant to the spirit of the
constitution."
The argument of countervalmg the ef
fect of foreign tariffs by our own is an
swered. It is contended that the manu
facturers who urge this argunent arc not
the party injured by these tariffs, but the
great interests of agriculture, commerce,
and navigation; and that, injured as these
interests may be by foiragn tariffs, they
ask no countervailing tariffs at home to de
crease the injury. The report says:
"Let our commerce be as free as our po
litical institutions,
duties onlv, open
world, and nation after nation will soon
follow our example. If we reduce our
tariff, the party opposed to the corn-laws
of England would soon prevail, and ad
mit all our agricultural products at all
times freely into her ports, in exchange
for her exports. And if England would
now repeal her duties upon our wheat,
flour, Indian corn, and other agricultural
products, our own restrictive system
would certainly be doomed to overthrow.
If the question is asked. Who shall be
gin this it is answered by the fact, that
England has already abated her duties up
on most of our exports. She has repeal
ed the duty upon cotton, and greatly re
duced the tariff upon her bread-stuffs,
provisions, and other articles; and her
present bad harvest, accompanied by a re
duction of our tariff, would lead to the re
peal of her com laws, nrtd the unrestric
ted admission, at all times, of our agri
cultural products."
The report goes on to state that the ma
nufacturing interest is opposed to a recip
rocal free trade with foreign nations, and
instances the rejection of the Zoll-Vericn
treaty and their support of a proluniory
tariff, which, it is alleged, is a double ben-
to the firmer and planter a benefit to
the former, in nearly a monopoly to the
linmn mnrL'fl. ;)Ti(! in n1nnrft rJn rC i
rnrrrrvp snhstitutio'.i of their
, .
rivals. Indeed, many of these
mimums are a hctihous value, assu
med by law, instead ol the real value; and
operation of ill luinimums maybe illus
trated by a single example. Thus by the
tariff of. 18 12, a duty of 30 per cent, ad-
valorcmls elcvied on ati manufactures of
cotton: but the law further provides that
r-otictti -ewus "jitit .dved. .colored, printed.
or stained, not exceeding in value Iwcnvy
cents per fquarc yard, shall he valneu at
Sweaty cents per square yard." If, then.
the leal value of the xlieapest cotton
iroods is but four cents a .square vard, it is
placed ry the laT at the false value of
twenty cents per square yard, and the du
ty levied on ine fictitious vaiue - raising
it five limes -higher on the cheap article
jronSGUicd by the poor, than upon the line
snide purchased by the more wealthy.
Indeed, ihe House document JVo. 300, of
ihe 1st session cf the 2Sth Congress, this
'difference, by actual importation, -was 03
per cent, between the cheaper and the fi
r.tr .articles -of the 20 per cent, lnmimum,
131 per cent, on the -30 per cent, mini
mum, on the CO per cent minimum, and
vS 1 per cent, on the 75 per cent, minimum.
This difference is fouuued on actual im
portation, and shows an average diserimi
TiaUrn against the poor on cotton imports
of 82 per cent, beyond what the tax
vould be if assessed upoR .the actual val
nc. The operation of the specific duty
-presents a similsr discrimination against
the poor and in favor of the rich. Thus,
r.pon salt, the fluty is not upon the value,
but eight cents a bushel, whether the arti
cle be coarse or iir.t showing, by the
S3me document, from actual importation,
a discrimination of per cent, against
.the cheap, arid in favor -of the fmer arti
cle: aad this, too greater or 'less extent, is
ihe veffect of all specific duties. When
we consider that 62,802,021 71 of the
revenue last year was collected by mini
annm duues, and 613.31 1 .085 4f"by spe.
icifiC .duties, ' -cliscrimmation against the
cheaper article must amount, by estimates
founded on the same document, to a tax
oT $5,103,422, exacted by minimums ard
fspeciilc duties .annually from the poorer
classes, by raising .thus the duties on
Let us wiiii revenue
fmr norts to all the
the tariff of 1812, our trade in foreign
imports re-exported abroad afforded large
and profitable employment to our mer
chants, and freight to eur commercial ma
rine, both for the inward and outward
voyage; but, since the last tariff, this trade
is being lost to the country. The total
amount of foreign imports re-exported,
during the three years since the last tar?
iff, both free and dutiable goods, is 633,
384,394 being far less than in any three
years (except during the , war,) since
1793, and less than was re-exported in
anv one of eidit several years. This
result is attributed to the combined result
of the cash duties and the tariff. If the
cash duties are retained, as it is bVlieyed
they should be, the adoption of the-Warehousing
system is recommended,"' by
which the foreign imports may be kept in
store by the government, until they axe
required for re-exportation abroad, or con
consumption at home in wdich latter
contingency, rmd at the time when for
that purpose they are taken out of these
stores for consumption, the duties are paid,
and, if re-cjx ported, they pay uo duty, but
only the expense of storage.
The favorable effect of the bill allow
ing a drawback of our duties on foreign
exports carried through our ports to pa
nada is shown, and an extension of the
system recommended, so as to permit the
exportation of Canada goods in transit
through our- own ports to foreign countries.
I A reduction and graduation of the price
ot public lands unsaleable at prerent rate3,
in favor of settlers and cultivators, is re
commended, as one of the means of in
creasing the revenue. It is .alleged that
such reduction of the price iu favor of the
settlers would increase the wages of Ja
bor. The "constitutional treasury is earn
estly recommended, having no power to
make loans or discounts, or issue any pa
per, and confined to the use delusively.
of gold and silver.
In connection with the "treasury of the
constitution, the location ol a branch
of the mint at New York is recom
mended as a place for keeping .safely
the vast amout of revenue collected at N.
York, and also a means of increasing the
coinage, and the circulation of gold and
silver.
The coast survey is rapidly progressing
having been extended eastward to the
eastern coast of Massachusetts, and south
ward nearly to tho dividing line between
Maryland and Virginia, on the Chesa
peake. Two new centres of operation
have been opened in North Carolina and
on the Gulf of Mexico. The importance
of the light house system is referred to,
and the a'Jention of Congress called to
the fact that from the Chesapeake to the
Capes cf Florida, our coast is badly ligh
ted. The report concludes by refarring to
the importance of charts of the exploring
expedition, and announcing that a report
is in preperation in relation to the banks
and currency, and other statistics.
we purchase and consume ten dollars
worth of "British agricultural produce,
converted into cloth, iron, and other goods
home market noth-
You did not go this length, but confined
it to luxuries.
"Numprmis niher misstatements are
Fpoken of. Why are they not pointed ; to one dollar's worth of the same articles
,? WW ro;ihpv? Hp art? mv ! she takes from us. Yet, according to the
statements are any ot them untrue? 1 1 report, to the farmer the foreign market is
re-affirm them, and challenge contradic
tion. I said that the Secretary had pro
nounce the protect ive policy to betoi
constitutionah against the authority of
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe
and Jackson, who all, over and over again
asserted the power and recommended its
exercise by Congress for the protection of
American manufactures. Is this a mis
representation? .
When, the pupular voice shall be heard
in tones of thunder, denouncing this new
and unheard-of doctrine, shall we be then
told that this too "never entered into the
conception of the President or Secrcta-
whole question, and I trim they will be
furnished.. Bat vrhv ti.,.. i . i .i
tariff of 1912? Has yi; t 1
i i 11 nt rcplenisned
your bankrupt Treasury, ,es uLd vor
currency, mum up the ite amr ukC
people irom utter prostration? :s
not given employment to labor, nnrk
it
every thing and the
tng. - - -
The report says that protective duties
are levied exclusively for the benefit of
the rich monopolists, at the expense of
the farmers and laborers. Now, I con- ; that in nothing I have said do I intend r
tend that just the reverse of this is the j be personally offensive to the Secretary of
truth. That the practical effect of pro- j the Treasury, for whom, from an early
tcction is to increase jhe number of manu- j acquaintance, I have ever cherish ed sm-
teem.
to the farmer, and prosperity to the whol
country? And what harm has u tj0r "
and why disturb it? ' '
In conclusion, I wish it understood
facturing establishments, and thus destroy j timents of personal respect and cste
monopoly by promoting compeli.ion; and j But when I see him, or any man. aiir
.i a i j : l . i i ...t i i ... .. . '-
wnan conceive to be a mortal blown at
ry
' I said that the Secretary had deuounced
the tariff of 18 12 as "too unjust and une
qual, too exorbitant and oppressive, too
clearly in conflict with the fundamental
principles of the Constitution." Is this
a misrepresentation? I said the Secreta
ry had asserted (I used his own wortls)
that "experience proved that, as a gener
al rule, twenty per cent. ad valorem will
yield the largest revenue." Experience
proves this, docs it, when the fact is no
torious that in 1812 (the only lime we
had .any experience of a 20 per cent, ad
valorem duty) the revenue was not half
what it has since been, and is now under
the protective tariff of 1842? Is this an
"egregious mistake? And, it so, who
made it? I said that the Message pre
scribed a ruinons. and anti-American rule
in relation to revenue, which, if adopted
by Congress, would not only check all
future investments, but prostrate every
branch of mechanical ami manufacturing
industry wherever wiuxual labor and not
labor-savin sr machinery was extensive
ly employed. Here is the rule in the
words of the Message;
"As long as Congress may generally
increase tle rate of duty on a given arti
cle and the revenue is increased by such
increase of duty, they are within the rev
enue standard; when they go beyond that
point, and, as they increase the duty, the
revenue is diminished or destroyed, the
act ceases to have for its object the raising
of revenue for the support of Govern
ment, but is for protection merely..'
In other words, whenever the Ameri-
that by withdrawing labor from agricul
ture to manufactures, yon not only di
minish the supply, but at the same time
increase the demand for agricultural pro
duce, and of course increase its price;
whilst, on the other hand, by increasing
manufacturing establishments you in
crease the supply of manufactured goods,
and of course reduce their price, so that
the farmer is thus enabled to sell for
more and buy for less. If demand and
supply regulate price, this conclusion is
inevitable. Yet the report says "the tar
iff is a double bent fit to the manufactu
rer and a double loss to the farmer."
The Secretary of State (Mr. Bucha
nan) understood this much better, when
he sent a toast some time since to the
manufacturers ol Pittsburg to this effect.
The election of James K. Polk has saved
the manulacturers from being ruined and
overwhelmed by excessive competition.
He was right. It certainly did favor the
invested capital, the monopolists, by
checking competion, and thereby keeping
down the wages of labor and the produce
of the farmer, which would, in a different
aiming
tnc vital interests ot my ' State and my
constituents, no personal, no carthlv con
sideration can prevent me from intcrno
sing my arm, feeble as it may be, to ward
off the blow. A. STEWAKT.
TurnpiSse Election.
THE Stockholders in the SoT5eret
and Bedford Turnpike road com
pany will take notice that ar. election
will be belt? t the house of James Phif
son, in Allegheny township, on the 1st
Monday (5ih day) of January next, ui
elect one President, six Manngers, and
one Treasurer, to conduct tho affairs of
said company the ensuing year.
BENJAMIN KIMMEI,.
novlS President.
IC7 Bedford Inquirer publish 5 times
and charge Company.
! i . L.JLU,....L..i. - Ail"
Cumberland r&arlict.
Flour,
Wheat,
Rye,
per barrel,
per bushel,
result, have been enhanced in price by an (j'0Tn
increased demand. This1 is illustrated by Qal,
mv, iuvi uiu at i uwi;uit, OUUllJV UVIVIC I l'.-,
ine larm oi ibis, me laborers m the lac- Annje,
T5iE TA2tin
Horse of Represetatives,Dcc.11,1815
their fabrics; and a loss to the latter, in a j To the Hon. Robfrt J. Walker
payment of those high prices, and in to
tal or partial exclusion from the foreign
market. The report adds! The num
ber of manufacturing capitalists who de
rive the benefit from the heavy taxes ex
tracted by the tariff from the twenty mil
lions of people, does not exceed ten thou
sand. The whole numbep (including the
working classes engaged in our manufac
tures) deriving any benefit from the tariff,
docs not exceed 100,000, of whom not
more than 10,000 would still have been
hrdujrht into this pursuit by the last tariff.
But this small number of -10,000 would
still have been i:i the country, consuming
our agricultural products; and in the at
tempt to secure them as purchasers, so
small a number, and not consuming one
hulf the supply of many counties, the far
mer and planter are asitcd to sacrifice the
markets ef the world, containing a popu
lation of eight hundred millions, disabled
from purchesingour products by our high
duties on all they would sell in exchange.
The farmer and planter would have the
home market without a tariff, and they
would have the foreign market also to a
much greater extent, but for the total or
partial prohibition of the last tariff.
The report goes on to speak of the
great variety of our agrieultunproducts,
which to be consumed -must lind a for
eign market, or be greatly depressed in
value. If on our reduction of duties,
England repeals her corn laws, nearly all
Europe must follow her example, or give
to her manufacturers advantages which
cannot be successfully encountered in
most of the raarkets of the world. The
report adds:
The tariff did not raise the price of our
bread-stuffs; but a bad harvest in England
does giving us for the time that foreign
tnarket which we would soon have at all
all times, by that repeal of the corn laws
which
iStcretar)t of the Treasury.
Sir: lam assailed in the official of
this morning, on account of the remarks
I made day before yesterday in debate on
the Message and your Report on the Fi
nances. The article purports to be editorial,
but, from the manner in which it speaks
of your motives and intentions, I infer
that it has emanated from you, and there
fore I feel called upon to notice it.
This article affirms that "it never en
tered into the conception either of the
President or Secretary to recommend ex-
c:sis. ow l Know not, nor can me
official know, what entered into your
conception; but 1 know i is your report,
and no language can make it plainer than it
is. Here are your own words, as quo
ted at the time:
"In accordance with these principles, it
is believed that the largest practicable por
tion of the ajnirefrale revenue should be
raised by maximum revenue duties upon
luxuries whether grown, produced, or
manulactured at home or abroad." -
Thus the same duty is proposed to be
levied on the articles indicated, "whether
grown, produced, or manulactured at
home or abroad"
In reply, it is said that "a duty is not
an excise," and, therefore, the Secretary
did not recommend an excise. This is
disputing about words: but I take it that
a duty levied on manufactures made '-
broad is an impost, and that
levied on manufactucs made at
is an excise. So that a duty may be an
excise. But the name the word ex
cise it seems is objectionable. You
may change the name, but this will not
change the thing. The recommendation
is to levy a duty on "luxuries, whether
rown. produced, or manufactured at
a uuty
"home"
rnnst follow the reduction of nur
1-,- - . , , . , . to i
tilllies. lillT H hl Ct iron, -Cfnfl0 ...:.u I . I 1 M A-
i ,.i I : , , ' "vuu-oiuu.-, iic yvuu ,nuint or aoroau. o lii'jenuuy can cx-
ihe cheaper article above what thev ! n Wi-t ; t.'.,i i .. . i .i , , ? J .:
be if the duty wcTe -assessed; variably falls; nccnase the increased
wpon ae actual value, if direct tax-J sum which, in that event. EnaJTwl
J r .1 ii, i - '
cs were mzue specme, mey woum oe in-j pay for our breadstuff we will take not
u.-i .ui, i mi .liuiudi ui. oi uur- m maauiactnres, hut only in specie- and
ly dodars as assessed on anl houses,
nvhfcaut respect to their actual value, ma
lting the owner of the Jmrnble tenement
ir cabin pay alax-cf thirty dollars, and
he owner of the costly mansion a tax of
iat thirty dollars on IhcnT :respective hou
.bZ6, it would only iliffer in degree, but
not in principle, from the same unvarying
eneciile duty .on cheap as on fine articles.
If anv Lscriminatia idnnald be made, it
::0!iid be the reverse cf the specific duty,
vr.ti. of the miuimums principle, by cs
'israj a maximum stmdaurd, a'ove
:vhicii value the duty on Che finer articles -J
hc.U;d r;3 fcigluET, and Jjclow -vhtii .hey
tshouli'&e lower cr? the cheaper" article.
jTLe iax vpozi lhx- aciail vlue is the most
not -having it to spare, she brings down,
ven to a greater extent, the price of our
cotton. Hence (he result, that a bad har
vest in England reduces the aggregate
price of our exports, often turns the ex
changes against ns carrying ocr specie a
broail, and inflictmg a serious blow on our
prosperity. Foreign nations cannot far a
scries cf years import more man they ex
port; and, if we crosc our markets against
the'r imports by high duties, thcy&must
buy less of oar exports, or give a lower
pric?, or boGu
Trior to the "30th of June, 1812, a cre
dit was given for the payment of duties;
since which date, they have Wen collec
ted in cash. Before 7 ihe cash duties and
! plain this away, and the only escape is"t
i "withdraw or mobify it." Yet my cal
ling this "an excise" is pronounced to be
an "egregious misrepresentation"
Now, if there be a misrepresentation ' in
the case, I submit who is guilty of it?
As in the case of the 12 per cent, rev
enue standard recommended in your cir
cular, which, when exposed, the official
said the Secretary had copied "verbatim",
from anoldcirculnr of 1832, so, in this,
case, the Secretary may have copied this
suggestion from Mr. McDcffie's letter,
bo highly eulogized in the official, in
which he recommends the adoption of
this very rule to levy the same doues on
domestic and foreign goods. This Mr.
McDiTriE, however, says, "is a great
concession to the manufactures; for, in
strict justice, he thinks the whole of the
duties should be taken off the foreign and
can mechanic or . manufacturer begins to
supply the market, and imports and reve
nue are consequently diminished, the du
ty ought to be reduced so as to pnt down
the American and let in the foreigner.
This is his rule.-,. Now, I said this was ;i
precisely such a rale as Sir Robert Peel
would recommend for our adoption; it
was a rule that ,.would guaranty the A
merican market to the foreigner forever,
or until American labor was grounedown
and degraded to the half-starved and
wrctchnd condition of the serfs and pau
pers of Europe; and that the American
masses, thus deprived of the means of
educating their children, would be obliged
to work, as in Europe, from the cradle to
the grave, and that their moral and politi
cal condition would in the end be no bet
ter than theirs.
: Such most clearly must be the practical
and inevitable operation of this rule, , if
carried out. And are these the benefits
and blessings this Administration has in
reserve for the "poor man?" I said they
were.
Was this a misrepresentation? v I sub
mit the question with confidence to the
good sense of the American people.
I said that in your report, for the first
time in an official form, hail promulgated
the doctrine of "free trade," which is op
enly and distinctly avowed; and to enforce
the argument, reference is mads to tne
"free trade" existing among the States;
and it is declared that "reciprocal free
trade among nations would best promote
the interests of all;" that "the manufac
turing interest opposes reciprocal jree
trade with foreign - nations;" "and if it
desired reciprocal free trade with other
nations, it would have desired a very dif
ferent tariff from that of 1812."
These are your positions, and I inferred
that you were in favor of "free-trade."
Was this too an "egregious misrepre
sentation? I said that the policy recommended by
this Administration, if carried out, would
be ruinous to Pennsylvania, because her
iron and other manufactures were carried
on mostly by manual labor, and not, as
in New England, by labor saving ma
chinery, and that therefore, to induce the
investment of capital and the aquisilion
of experience, she must be protected a
gainst a free competition with the depres
sed and low priced labor of Europe.
Your report represents the foreign mar
ket as all important to the farmer, whilst
the home market you consider cf small
comparative consequence; yet it appears
from official documents that our annual
exports uf agricultural products (deduct
ing cotton, tobacco, and rice) have not for
a series of years exceeded an average of
ten millions of dollars a year, whilst the
domestic market amounts to more than
fifty times that sum. Massachusetts, it
is ascertained, imports and consumes an
nually thirty-three millions of dollars
worth of agricultural products of the
other Slates, whilst Great Britain, from
whence we import about fifty millions of
dollars worth of manufactured goods annu
ally, (one half of the whole value of
which consists of agricultural prodece,
raw material, and the subsis tance of labor)
does not take, of all the agricultural pro
ductions of the United States, (excluding
tones were put on hr-lf work, and of
course half pay: and almost immediately
after its passage ihey were restored to full
work and full pay. It is for the sake of
the laborer and the farmer, therefore, that
I advocate the protective policy, and not
lor tne "rich monopolists the onlv
class that will be benefited bv the course
ol this Administration in the check their
policy wlil give to competition and new
: . i i r i i m .i
linraujiuuus ui capital, wane me "poor
laborer ana the larm er w ill be .the only
sufferers.
I submit to every man of practical com
mon sense whether such must not be the
result. And yet we are gravely told by
both the Message and Report that pro
tec five duties operate exclusively for the
benefit of the rich capitalists, at the ex
pense of the "poor laborer and the far
mer!" But, finally, this whole question, so
interesting to the American people, turns
upon a simple question of fact. "Do'pro
lective duties ultimately increase or re
duce the price of the articles on which
they are levied?"
Now the message and the report as
sume (but fail to prove in . a single in
stance) that protective duties have increas
ed prices, and are therefore oppressive
and burdcnsome;whiIe, on the other hand,
I assert, and am ready to prove by your
own documents, by every prices-current
and every merchant in the country, that
the prices of protected goods have been
reduced uy competition sinoe the odious
minimums and specific euties were first
imposed for protection in 1816 to one
half one-third, one-fourth, and in some
instances to one-sixth part of what they
were at that time, as in the case of coarse
cottons, glass, iron, nails, fcc.; yet. in the
face of these undeniable facts, it is assert
ed thai the duty (nine cents a yard 150
percent.) is added to the price of the do
mestic as well as the imported goods, and
is paid by the consumer, and that the
ti 77 .1 - i
-poor man, is mus laxea on ins coarse
cotton goods 82 per. ctmore lhanthc rich
whon the lact is admiled that the poor
man now gets a better article made at
home, and paid for in labor or produce,
at one fourth of the price he paid in 1816.
when the minimum duties were first im
posed; while, on the other hand, the wa
ges of labor and the produce of the far
mer, Hour, gram, meat, &c, have under
went little or no reduction of price, ow-
1112: to me increased demand nrodueod hv
the increase of manufactures. Such has
been the effects of protective duties,
Hut revenue duties, levied on articles not
produced or manufactured at home, may
and do generally increase prices, because
they do not produce competition and
increased supply. But to the facts. I
call for the proof. Show me the evidence
that in a single in'statnee protective duties
have permanently increased prices. This
you assert and I deny. This is an issue
of fact, and not of argument. Produce,
then, your evidence that protective duties
have permanently increased prices, and
men go on and denounce protection as
much as you please, as plunder, robbery.
and oppression. But first vonr ft
M. . J J ..w
and then make your argument. As a
lawyer I ask you, sir, would any court
. ri . j ..1.. J
ui vmiiMcnuora loierate lor a moment the
course you pursue? You bring a suit a
gainst A, who denies your claim; are you
ai iioeny to assume the lacts without
proof, to bejust as you want them, and
then make your speech and ask a ver
dict? Surely not. Yet such is the
course pursued on this great question.
You and your friends- assume, without
proof, that protective duties increase pri
ces, and then contend that the "poor
man" and the farmers are oppresed and
pmnuercu oy tne tarifl. ftow, if this be
i
11
toes
pph
44 dried 44
Peaches dried 44
Butter, per pounJ,
Beef, 44
Veal, 44
Chickens, per dozen,
Eggs, 44
Stone Coal, per bushel.
$3 00 a 5 50
1 00 a I 10
55 a 0 60
7J a C 8Q
55 a 0 40
31 a 0 37
51 a 0 27
57 a 0 50
I CO a 1 S3
15 a 0 IS
3 a 0 1
3 a 0 5
1 5 a 1 50
10 a 0 12
7 0 8
BANK NOTE LIST.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
CORRECTED WEEKLY
cotton, tobacco, and rice,) two and a found to he tmtrue in point of fact,and that
half millions of dollars worth a yean thus ; tho reverse is true, that they reduce prices
estimating one-half the value of our im- j jad of coarse lessen burdens, then what
ports to consist of agricultural produce . oecomcs of all your argument and
converted into goods, it follows that we ! speeches against the oppression of the
import and consume . about 'twenty-five j tariff.' They fall lifeless to the ground.
";" rigui to assume
yoor tacts, and pall on voq for the proof.
millions of British agricultural produce in
the form of manufactures, whilst she takes
STANDARD GOLD AND SILVER
Pennsylvania,
Pittsburgh, Banlis,
Philadelphia Banks,
Girard Bank
United States Banfc,
Bank of Germantown
Monongahela Bank Brownsville
Bank of Gettysburg
Bank of Chester Countf
Bank of Cliambersburg
Bank of Delaware,
Bank of Susquehanna County
Bank of Montgomery County
Bank of Northumberland
Bank of Lewistown
Bank of Middleton,
Carlisle Bank
Columbia Bank and Bridge Co.
Do leslown Bank
Erie Bank
Franklin Bnk, "Washington
Farmers' Bank Reading
Farmers Bank Bucks County
Farmer's Drover's Bank Waynesb'gpar
Farmers Bank Lancaster par
Lancaster Co. Bank
Lancaster Bank
Harrisburg Bank
Honesdale Bank
Lebanon Bank
Miners' Bank Pollsville
Wyoming Bank
Northampton bank
York Bank
Slate Scrip, Exchange bank Fitts,
Mer. and Manf's B
Issued by solvent Banks
Oh'o.
Mount Pleasant
Slcubenville, (F.& M.J
St. Clairville
Marietta
New Lisbon
Cincinnati bjnks,
Columbus
Circleville
ZaucsvilLa
Putnam
Wooster
Massilloa
Sandusky
Geauga
Nor walk
Xenia
Clevelawl Bank
Dayton
Franklin Bank of Celucibuf,
Chillicothe
Sciota
Lancaster
Hamilton
Granville
Commercial Bank of Lake Erie,
Farmers Bank of Canton
Urbaua,
Indiana,
State Bank and branches,
Slate Scrip,
Illinois,
par
par
par
39
par
ft
1
par
par
par
par
I
1
I
pa
par
1
1
par
par
-4
1
4
i
par
1
i
i
1
!
W
44
44
5
10
1$
45
11
20
49
I
3
Slate Bank
Slate baak
Memphis
40 Shawnetown
Missouri.
Teanctser,
3 j Other solvent banks 5
Aorth Carolina.
All solvent banks
South Carolina, '
All sol Tent banks
New England,
New England
New Fork,
New York city par J Other banks
Virginia,
put oil the Aacncaa manufacturer. .'less than two and a half fronts; so that' The facts; lie , at the fcuadaUon cf the ' Wheeling and Brunches,
y
91