Indiana State Sentinel

FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE

In RELATION TO A

PROTECTIVE

TARIFF

EMBRACED IN

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF OUR TARIFF LAWS SINCE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THAT OF 1842

BY JAMES WHITCOMB.

[Continued]

Let us not be misunderstood. We do not say that no tariff bill should have been passed at the last session. We only say that the bill which did pass, was, in many respects, highly objectionable. The taxes imposed, were entirely too high on many articles. Some kind of a tariff was desired, to supply a revenue. And, indeed, a few of the Democratic members felt themselves compelled to vote for the bill; but they protested against it at the same time, as unequal, wicked and oppressive, and avowed their intention to amend it when they had the power. The whigs had a large majority, the vote was taken just at the close of the session, and the few Democrats who voted for it, did so because the tyrannical majority would suffer no democratic amendments to be made to the bill, and if it had not passed in the shape it did, the whig majority would have adjourned and left the country without a Revenue! Their motto seems to have been, AN UNRIGHTEOUS TAX, OR STOP THE WHEELS OF GOVERNMENT! The first was thought the least of the two evils. It may be asked, if the Whigs had the majority, why not let them pass it? Why the necessity for any Democratic member to vote for it? But the fact was, the Whigs would unite to prevent any democratic amendment to the bill—some of them all the time intending not to vote for it, on its final passage, for fear of their constituents. They were willing to help their friends in every thing about the bill, except the final vote! We cannot but view this course as the effect of party feeling and party prejudice. They looked with distrust upon every proposition coming from a Democratic member. No good could "come out of Nazareth." They were but too apt to lose sight of the interests of our common country, to indulge in mere party warfare. They were flushed with victory, revengeful and vindictive. We wish not to be uncharitable. We are far from charging all the Whig party as being governed by such motives. We believe there are many among them, especially those who desire to make an honest living by their farms, or by labor, who, on being satisfied of these facts, will withhold their support from such leaders. They desire not to be led to their ruin, merely to gratify the ambition of a few men.

Our limits will only permit us to point out a few of

THE EVILS IN THE TARIFF BILL OF 1842.

We have seen that, as long ago as 1824, nearly twenty years, Mr. Webster said that the cotton manufactures in Massachusetts, &c. had even then "passed the point of competition," that is, they needed no "protection." In fact the articles of that class which are used by the mass of the people, especially in the Western States, such as shirtings, sheeting, and the average prints and calicoes, are made cheaper in this country than in Europe. The friends of a high tariff insist that the English manufacturer has an advantage over ours, in the cheap labor there. But labor is but one item of the expense in carrying on a manufactory of that kind, and it is but a very small item. The principal items of expense, are land, buildings, water power, cotton and other materials to work, and provisions. And all these are far cheaper here than in England. They are so much cheaper here, that the owner can afford to give his workmen much higher wages, and yet make much larger profits. In proof of this, we are hearing daily of manufactories stopping in England, because they are found unprofitable, although the wages paid to the hands employed are so extremely low that many are on the point of starvation, many are striking for higher wages, and quitting work. Frequent instances of this, we saw take place during the last year, before our tariff bill passed. Our tariff, therefore, did not cause this distress. At the same time—that is, about three months before our tariff passed—we find the following statement in a New York paper: "Factories.—We learn from the Troy Whig that Mr. Benjamin Marshall, of New York, is about erecting four factories on the Poestenkill, in addition to the two already in progress there. The amount of money to be expended is about five hundred thousand dollars." Several new factories were to be built in Pennsylvania, and the large factories in Lowell had been enlarged. This, let it be remembered, was when the tariff was low, as compared with the bill that has since passed. Have we not proved, then, that our factories can give better wages, and yet make larger profits, than the English factories? And now, where was the necessity of "protecting" our prosperous and wealthy factories against the half starved and broken English ones?

This is not all. Before our late tariff was passed, it was published in a paper (the Portland Argus) as follows: "Messrs. A. & A. Lawrence & Co., of Boston, who sell the Lowell cotton goods, have on hand 28,000 bales, or about twenty-five millions of yards. James W. Page & Co. and James H. Mills & Co., from various other establishments in New England, have about an equal amount, making fifty millions of yards of goods piled up in the stores of merchants, waiting for market."

Here we see that only three houses in Boston had on hand more than three yards of cotton goods of American make, for every man, woman and child, white and black, in the United States. This was only in a single city. But there are other large and numerous factories in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and other States, and they had also, no doubt, large quantities of such goods on hand. Now the object of a protective tariff, its friends say, is to enable our manufacturers to make goods. But these fifty millions of yards were already made. They needed no protection. They were ready for sale. And yet we shall shortly see that just such cotton goods are protected by the last tariff bill, enormously. We ask every reasonable, thinking man, can this be right?

But we are not yet done with our proof. It is said that the object of a protective tariff is to have goods made in our own country as cheap as they are made abroad. This we have already seen was stated by Mr. Clay to be the object in 1816. That foreign goods were then made so cheap abroad, that unless they were taxed when they were brought into the country, they would undersell and drive our goods out of the market, and stop our factories. But our factories have, for a long time, turned out our cotton goods so cheap, that they not only furnish all our home wear of that description, but large quantities of them are actually exported! Yes! They are sent by the American manufacturer to South America, for instance, and landed there, at the foreign Custom House, alongside of the English vessel, loaded with English goods of the same description, both paying the same tax, and the American article not only fully competes with the English article, but actually out sells it! Did such articles need more protection?

We ask the honest, laboring farmer and mechanic of all parties, was it necessary to tax them still higher to benefit such manufacturers?

If we can export such goods and still compete with the "pauper labor" of England, as it has been called, in foreign ports, it must follow that such English goods cannot be brought into our country for sale, when compelled to pay a high tax at our Custom Houses. And this is the fact. If you go into one of our stores in Indiana, you never see a bale of cotton shirting or sheeting with the mark of an English factory on it. You will find none of English make. They all have the mark of an American mill. And this was the case when the duties were low, several years ago. Again we ask, did such goods need more protection? Why, the manufacturers themselves, before the election of 1840, proclaimed in Congress, through their members, that they should ask for no more protection! But this was for the purpose of getting the Southern and Western Whigs to go with them in that election. For after getting fully into power, they ask and receive "protection," in the shape of an enormously high tax on the consumers. Is this a fair proceeding?

It is evident that their object was not "protection," but taxation. For there were fifty millions of yards in a single city, waiting for market! That is, they were waiting for the passage of a tariff, to enable the few wealthy owners to sell them higher than the old prices. If, under the old duties, they had raised the price much above the real value, they were afraid the English article might have been brought into the country and kept them in check. They thought it best for their interest, therefore, to keep out all foreign articles of that description, by enclosing the country with the wall of a high tax, and have the whole market to themselves. As these immense factories are almost entirely in the hands of a few wealthy companies, they can easily agree among themselves what prices to impose upon the people. It requires companies of men of great wealth to carry them on. Let us make all this plain, by

A FAMILIAR EXAMPLE.

Suppose one of our incorporated towns in Indiana, should pass a law or ordinance, that all articles brought within the town limits to market from the country, should pay a tax. Among others, suppose the tax of fifty cents on every bushel of potatoes. Suppose a bushel of potatoes could be raised for fifty cents. The farmer, taking them to market, to "make himself whole," would be obliged then to charge one dollar a bushel; that is, fifty cents for the trouble of "raising and hauling" them to town, and fifty cents for the tax which he would be obliged to pay for the privilege of selling them.

Now, one raising potatoes in town, in his garden or on his out-lot, with the same trouble or expense of fifty cents a bushel, could get his dollar a bushel in market also, although he would have to pay no tax; because he would ask and could get the highest price in market. For the tax on the farmer's potatoes, would keep them up to a dollar, and the town people must pay that, or do without. And it is manifest that the tax, although paid by the farmers, in the first instance, would, after all, be paid by the people in town, who were the buyers; the farmers being obliged to charge just so much more. So high a tax, to be sure, would cause fewer potatoes to be eaten in town, and of course fewer would be sold by the farmer. The farmer, also, could not buy as many articles in town as he would have done, had he sold more potatoes. He couldn't be so good a customer to the mechanics in town, nor get as much sugar, tea, coffee, salt, iron, &c. as he would have done, if he had sold or exchanged more of his potatoes. He can't, for instance, get leather from the tan yard in town, because the people in town can't afford to give the money for his produce. He is not well prepared for tanning leather on his farm, and besides he has too many other matters to attend to; but leather he must have, and the time that he takes to tan an inferior article, would have enabled him to raise potatoes enough to buy twice as much from the tanner, if the tax was not in the way.

So far, such a tax would diminish trade, and be injurious to both parties.

Now the operation of such a law, between town and country, is precisely that of a tariff between this and a foreign country. The most difficult national question can be understood by any man who is able to attend to his own business without the aid of a guardian, if exhibited to him by a familiar example, and if he will think for himself. There are too many who are interested in veiling such questions beneath the mist of deceptive words and pompous declamation.

But to return. Another and more important effect would be produced by this town tariff. The advanced price on potatoes, occasioned by the tax, would not all be paid into the town treasury. That part paid on the potatoes sold by the farmer, would go into the treasury, but the extra fifty cents a bushel, paid for those raised in town would go into the gardener's pocket. The gardener would be benefited by that part of the operation, and not the town government, for carrying on which, the tax was imposed.

Again. If the tax on potatoes should be so high that the farmer would take theirs to other towns, where the taxes were not so high, then none would be brought from the country to the first town, and no tax would be derived from that source. That would be a prohibitive tariff: and the first town would be compelled to resort to direct taxation to pay the town expenses. The farmers, too, being compelled to trade with other towns, the mechanics, merchants, &c., in the first town, would lose the benefit of their custom.

But the potatoes that might yet be raised in our own town, would still bring a dollar a bushel, although it would cost the gardener but fifty cents a bushel to raise them. The remaining fifty cents would then be a tax on the rest of the community, for the exclusive benefit of the gardener, not a cent of it going into the treasury, for the common benefit of the citizens.

All this would be bad enough. But the argument of the town council would be, that they wanted to protect the gardeners, until they could raise and sell potatoes as cheap as the farmers, and make the town independent of the country. Well; suppose the ten or a dozen gardeners should have bought up nearly all the out-lots for that purpose, and having no other cultivation to attend to, should, by the aid of machinery, wealth, &c., actually raise potatoes so cheap that after the people of the town had bought all the potatoes they wanted of them, at a high price, there would still be an overplus, which the gardeners could afford to be at the expense of sending to the other towns, and undersell the farmers. Would the gardeners need a tax on their neighbors for their own protection any longer?

But perhaps it might still be urged, that if the profits of the gardeners were so high, it would encourage others to turn gardeners also, and so cheapen the article. But (to make the comparison just, as to our large manufactories) suppose it required great wealth to procure machinery, &c. to engage in the business, that it could generally be done only by rich companies. They could then undersell any new beginner, and break him up, and then indemnify themselves by again raising their prices. Besides, it is seen that they already raised more potatoes than were used in town. And would the gardeners ask for an increased tax, if they believed it would cheapen the article and diminish their profits?

Another argument is, that by encouraging others in town to turn gardeners, there would be fewer mechanics, &c. left to attend to their old business and more gardeners to buy their work. But there are but few gardeners needed, as their work is carried on by machinery, &c., and it is not machinery that human beings that need shoes, leather, salt, sugar, coffee, &c. The gardeners can use only a small part of these articles, which are for sale in town, and by their high tax, they have driven off the farmers, who would have used them in exchange for their productions. Is it strange that under such circumstances the gardeners should become rich and the rest of the town complain of "hard times?"

Not satisfied with all this, however, suppose the gardeners made wealthy by this very tax, should beg the town council to lay a still higher tax on potatoes. Would there be any reason or justice in it? It might be natural enough for the gardeners to ask, but would you suppose that a town council, fairly elected by all the citizens would pass such a law? Would you suppose that, to gratify one-tenth part of the people in the town, they would be willing to increase the already heavy burdens of taxation on the other "nine tenths?"

Now let us suppose that each one of the twenty-six divisions or wards of the town was entitled to elect a member of the town council, and that these gardeners lived in the four or five outer divisions, and where, by their wealth, which they had got by this very tax, they should be able to control the elections, and elect members friendly to their wishes and interests. It would not be very strange if these members should vote for any amount of tax. But would it not be passing strange if the members elected in the other wards or divisions should vote for it? If, however, they should be so ignorant, or so far seduced by plausible speeches and flattery, as to desert the interests of their confiding neighbors, and vote to tax them still more, ought they ever to be elected again?

Now this is a plain and familiar example of the operation of the last tariff upon the whole United States as to most articles of necessity. The reader will be able to make the application.

After the tariff upon imported cotton cloth of the kind generally used by the mass of the people, had been kept up until it could be made in the country so cheap, that no more was imported, the Whigs have not only continued, but actually increased the tax. And from what has been said, it is clear that the effect of it is, to enrich the wealthy manufacturer, without putting a dollar of it into the treasury of the nation.

We have now the tariff bill before us, as it passed at the last session, but our limits will only permit us to examine a few of the necessaries of life, for the farmer, mechanic and laborer, as to

THE AMOUNT OF THE TARIFF TAX.

The last tariff law provides that all imported manufactures of cotton cloths, shall pay a tax of thirty per cent. on the value. So that if a farmer or laborer buys at the "store," one dollar's worth for shirts, he pays thirty cents more to benefit the manufacturer. This is not a small tax, for persons in their condition in life. But when looked into, it is far worse. For, mark the deception. It is provided in another part of the same bill, that all cotton cloth, which is not worth more than twenty cents a square yard, shall be valued up to twenty cents. Now, there is a great deal of that article that costs only from six to eight cents to make it at the factory. And this is what is generally used, especially by the laboring part of the people. And yet, by this unjust law, this is valued as high as the superior article; that is, at twenty cents a yard! That is, all cotton cloth, however coarse, inferior, or low priced, is to be valued at twenty cents a yard, in fixing the amount of the tax. Now let us take a yard of this cloth, which costs but six cents to make it. That is valued at twenty cents. Then a tax of thirty per cent. is put on that value. And thirty per cent. on twenty cents, is just six cents for the tax. So the tax (six cents) is equal to the cost of making (six cents), which is really a tax of one hundred per cent. on the real value, instead of thirty per cent.! So, too, calicoes or prints are taxed at the same rate; but, however inferior or low priced, they are all valued at thirty cents the square yard. It costs only about nine cents, on an average, to make calicoes, such as are generally worn by the people in the West. Take a yard of calico that costs nine cents a yard to make it. It is valued at thirty cents. Then thirty per cent. tax on that, is nine cents, making the tax just equal to the original cost!

Some articles of this sort are, in this deceptive way, taxed as high as one hundred and forty per cent.! There are many other articles of necessity for the farmers, mechanics and laborers that are taxed in the same partial and unfair manner, which we are sorry we have not time to notice. It applies to almost all such articles. But the finer and better article, that really costs thirty cents a yard to make it, and which is used by the rich and fashionable, pays only the same duty. The poor man pays then, just a double price for his article on account of the tax, while the rich man pays only the real value, and not quite a third more for the tax!

For instance. The poor man buys at the "store," six dollars worth of the common article, three dollars of which is for the tax, while the rich man, who buys six dollars worth of the superior article, pays less than a dollar and a half of it as a tax!

Does not such a tariff make the rich richer, and the poor poorer?

Let us make this plain, by a reference to our State revenue law: Suppose it required a man to pay as a tax, one per cent., which is one dollar on every hundred dollars worth of property. Suppose that, like our boasted tariff law, it provided that all horses not worth more than one hundred dollars, should be valued by the assessor up to one hundred dollars. The poor old man who, to raise bread for his children, would plough with an old blind horse, worth only fifteen dollars, would have to pay as much tax for it, as the rich young spark would pay for his horse worth one hundred dollars!

We ask our farmers and laboring men, without distinction of party, seriously, if they can approve of such a law? We ask them if they have not been deceived; if their confidence has not been abused?

We have heard this—aye, this very law—impudently praised on the stump and in the press, as the poor man's best friend! And if a modest complaint is only hinted, we are told that we are making war against the rich! If the friends of the poor, who are ground under the iron heel of taxation, mildly protest against such treatment, they are told not to make war against the rich! The rich are to be protected; but if war is made against the poor, they are not to be allowed the privilege of defending themselves!

This unjust distinction against the poor, is made still greater in other articles. The coarser kind of woollen goods, so much used by the farmer and laborer: and especially flannels and baizes, so necessary for infancy, for old age and sickness, is taxed still higher by this bill. Flannels that are made for eight cents a yard, pay the enormous tax of fourteen cents a yard, being one hundred and seventy five per cent.! And the profits charged afterwards on the tax, as well as the cost, makes it a heavy burden on the laboring man. But the highest priced broad cloths and the finest flannels, pay a far less tax on the value! And yet such articles are in most danger of foreign competition.

It would be some consolation to the farmer, if the tax he had to pay, should go into the Treasury for the common benefit. But where, as we have shown, the taxes are so high that the foreign article is excluded, the domestic article only can be bought, and the tax or tariff on it, of course goes into the pocket of the manufacturer.

So as to salt. Salt, that prime necessity of life, which the wealthy inhabitant of the city only uses on his table, but which the Western farmer uses so extensively to save his pork, and beef, and bacon, and to salt his stock, &c. This article, even in tax oppressed England, is admitted tax free. It is there regarded, like the air we breathe, as an absolute necessary. But, in this land of liberty, where we have so many stump professions for the poor, the poor man's salt is only taxed. "Aye, taxed by this boasted tariff, this "poor man's best friend."

Our Western farmers will be surprised to learn that salt is made in some of the West India Islands, at seven and eight cents a bushel: that it is made on the sea coast of Spain for four and two-third cents, and in Sicily even as low as two and five-eighth cents a bushel, of eighty pounds weight. It is made in immense quantities in those and other southern countries, by evaporating or drying away sea water in the sun. It is stronger, dryer, and far superior for curing meat, compared with that made at our salt works. Pork and beef cured with it, does not need re-packing.

Under our present system, our produce dealers are compelled to pay an extravagant price for a damp, inferior article of only fifty or fifty-six pounds to the bushel, and to have their beef and pork re-packed at New Orleans at an expense of a dollar a barrel. This is a heavy draw-back on their profits, and of course a heavy burden on the prime staples of our State. The produce dealer must buy with an eye to his profits, and is consequently not able to give the farmer as much for his hogs and cattle. Like most laws to raise revenue, the burden is at last borne by the industry of the country.

The census taken in 1830, shows that the salt companies, &c. of the United States, manufactured a little over six millions of bushels in the year. The public documents show that we imported in the same year a little above eight millions of bushels. The tariff tax on this imported salt was largely above one hundred per cent. This enabled the salt companies to sell as high as the tariff would suffer them to go.

The consequence is, that we pay an amount of tax on the imported and home manufactured article both, that would buy a far greater quantity of the best salt from abroad, than is made in the whole United States!

Ought this tax to be continued for the benefit of salt monopolies, and the people of the West be forced to buy a wet, indifferent article, at a higher price and less weight, and frequently at a still further loss in weight, if bought by the barrel, occasioned by drainage?

If we were to notice all the articles of necessity that are enormously taxed by this bill, it would far exceed our limits. We shall dismiss this part of the subject therefore, by calling attention to a very few more, of which every man is a competent judge. As very few persons are acquainted with the low price of some articles abroad, we annex a list and their prices, even as long ago as 1832.

The cost of making one set of six inch bed screws, is 6 cents.

Do. a carpenter's square, weighing 1 1/2 pounds, 6 cents.

Do. one chest lock,

Do. carpenter's hammer, weighing 1 1/2 pounds.

Do. one six barred curry comb, weight 1/2 pound,

Do. pair trace chains, weight 8 pounds, 35 cents.

Do.

Document No. 106, of the House of Representatives, second session, twenty-second Congress.

Making every allowance for merchants' profits, the reader can, from this list, form a faint idea how heavily the people are taxed on such articles, to make them command the prices they do in our Western stores.

The fault is not in the Western merchant, as we have shown. It is in the tax originally imposed by the high tariff which goes with the goods and is at last paid by the retail buyer.

It may be said that the laborer may pay as little tax as he pleases, by buying less from the merchant. To this we answer, that his necessities compel him to buy something: and even if he were to buy nothing, he would still pay his portion of the tariff tax. This is well understood and easily proved. If the laborer should stint and deprive himself of the comforts and necessaries of life, sold at the "store," yet those who did buy, would, by paying the increased price, be so much the less able to pay the laborer his fair wages. So true is it, in most instances, that all such impositions, in the long run, weigh on the hands of the Laborer. Such a policy is not only unjust, but it is impolitic and unwise. For there is nothing at last that gives solid and permanent wealth to a country, but labor. All wealth comes from that humble and too frequently despised source. It is the business of trade, commerce and navigation, merely to retail or exchange the products of labor. If Labor should cease, these proud interests would be annihilated—they would pass out of existence.

A free and prosperous Laboring and farming interest in a country, is its glory and its pride. It constitutes the very sinews and life blood of its prosperity. Without its life giving breath, every other interest would sink in death. Every wise government, therefore, should foster and encourage, cherish and protect the laborer. Why, then, manacle, cripple and palsy its hands?

The poor man pays, under this tariff, in proportion to his purchase, more for his coat, his shirt, his blanket, his ax, and other necessaries, than the rich man does for his wine, his furniture, his silks and apparel.

Will it be said that this is spoken for effect? Let us look into the bill itself. "Facts," it is said, "are stubborn things," and "figures won't lie." The Custom House tax on salt, was only twenty per cent., in 1830, and is now raised to above one hundred per cent., taking the difference of weight into consideration. Common drillings, sheetings and calicoes, from twenty-five to, in most instances, one hundred and even one hundred and forty per cent. The silk shoe worn in the ball room pays no higher duty than the cow hide shoe worn by the laborer and ploughman.

On the other side, wines and foreign fruits pay but fifty per cent., and silks generally, but thirty or forty per cent. Ornamental feathers, artificial flowers, hair bracelets, chains, ringlets and curls, pay only twenty-five cents; gold or silver jewelry, only twenty per cent.; diamonds only seven and one-half percent: other gems and precious stones only seven per cent. Is this a poor man's law?

WILL THIS TARIFF CREATE A HOME MARKET FOR

OUR PRODUCTS?

Those, who contend that it will, say that there are too many engaged in tilling the earth, and that we must hire some of them to manufacture, by promising to give them more for their articles than we should have to give others. Now complain that we who sell what we produce, or that we sell it too low, which is a loss, and we are, it seems, to balance it by buying at a higher price, what we do not produce, which is also a loss. Suppose we could sell to a starved foreigner a barrel of flour for two hundred yards of "domestic," what do we gain by refusing to take his "domestic," and be compelled to sell our barrel of flour to one of our own tariff tax to one dollar a hundred yards? Will not man's self-interest prompt him to engage in the most profitable business? Is he not generally the best judge of what is the most profitable for himself? If you hire him to betake himself to a different business, do you not pay dear for in some other way? Do you not pay "one price to make him willing," and another price for his article? If you have to pay the manufacturer to purchase your produce, what do you gain by it? If, by the tariff, you have to give him a double price for his article, are you not in the very way you were at first, supposing that he gives even a double price for goods. But we shall prove, shortly, that he will not give the double price for ours.

If he does give you the double price, where in is he "protected"? If he had to do that, he would not be striving in Congress for protection. If he has to pay out as much as he receives, he is just where he started. No. When any body of men are "protected" in their business, it must be that they obtain and retain a substantial benefit. And if so, it comes to this, protection to one class, is, therefore, a tax on the rest of the community. In buying and selling, "what is one man's gain, may be another's loss."

Rest assured that however successful, men of Congress from manufacturing districts may be, in "juggling" this subject, there are too wise to be "humbugged" that the Whigs have already, shown from the speech of Mr. Webster himself, in 1824, that he regarded the portion of his constituents who were manufacturers, as a select few of great wealth in his community.

We have seen, too, that Mr. Clay in 1816, saw a tariff as a tax on the rest of the people, for the benefit of the manufacturer, for he did not venture to propose that it should last always. It was to continue only until the "protected" articles could be made as cheap here as abroad. And lower than that has been, and is the case now, as we have shown already.

Let us see if the manufacturers can give us the double price for our produce. Let us see if they can consume it. In the good old times of virtue and simplicity, the mother and daughter in a farmer's family, did their own spinning and weaving and were able to do the their fathers and brothers. By modern improvements in machinery, most of our clothing is made in the large manufactories. Now suppose that ten men engaged in manufacturing business, were to do the double duty, in eating, who might be engaged in raising provisions, and that they should mutually supply each other. But the ten city farmer and the one country could easily raise a great deal more provisions than the whole community, men and women, could eat. To allude boldly men on our farms, therefore, can furnish far more than ten puny manufacturers could consume. But this comparison would be conceding too much. Calculate the number of suits of clothes, the number of hats and pairs of shoes, that the one farmer's family would use in the course of a year, and then how long would it take the ten manufacturers to make those and more. Now the fact is, the number of our manufacturers make—the demand necessarily greater. That great will come in the wonderful improvements made in agriculture. In grinding those mills, with a spinning machine, an ax and a plough, to supply a family, and in one man, with daisy the wool, you, a a it it took one manufacturer all his time to ted clothing for one farmer, the same manufacturer, with his machinery, could make clothing, from the above calculation, to clothe two hundred and sixty-seven farmers. But this labor saving machine has but one mouth to feed, the man's who "tgd, it."s and oat farmer, by planting a few more rows of corn, could daff that enough into an opoyiex. When will the other, two hundred and sixty-six farmers do with their surplus produce?

So much for arguing on general principles. Now let us look at facts. Boston is the great manufacturing town in the principal manufactories. We have examined the price currents of that city for different years, when the tariff was high and when it was low. If the protection of manufacturers by a high tariff increases the consumption of our provisions, and raise their price, these price currents will show it. In 1816, the total the tariff was low. The prices in Boston, in that year, were, for a barrel of flour, $4.37: in 1824, when the tariff was raised, flour was $7.37: in 1828, when it was raised still higher, flour was $6.50: and in 1832, when the highest tariff was imposed, flour was only $5.50. No, in 1841, pork was $22 a barrel: in 1825, it was only $11. In 1816, corn was 50 cents a bushel; in 1828 only 55 cents. Tobacco, in 1816, was 22 cts.; and in 1825 only 16 cts. Cotton, in 1816, was 3 cents pound; in 1824, it was 16 cents: and in 1828 only 11 cents.

These prices may seem incredible, but the wonder will cease when we consider that the manufacture of these articles is brought to great perfection by machinery, &c. We refer for our authority to document No. 106, of the House of Representatives, second session, twenty-second Congress. It would almost tread the world: The Mississippi valley would almost read the world.