164 7'jx'AXSACT]oys of the Amehicax IxsrriUTE. 



unjust reuuirk, under the mistaken notion that the whole amount of 

 the duty on woolen fabrics operates as protection for them. Tlie 

 true state of the case is very different, and ought to be known. In 

 the first place, the «/?<?c'/^c duty, so far as that goes, gives them no 

 protection. It is compensatory merely, balancing the duty which 

 they pay on their wool. The ad valorem rate, also, is neutralized, 

 in part by the duties on other materials used in manufacturing pro- 

 cesses, and by local taxes, from which their foreign rivals are exempt. 

 The actual protection which the tariff gives to the wool manufac- 

 turer (if we except a few goods of the finer descriptions) is less than 

 thirty per cent, a rate which cannot be regarded as excessive or 

 unreasonable. 



Considered as an element of national prosperity, the groiohuj of 

 wool is no less essential than its manufacture. Perhaps it should be 

 regarded as even more important, in view of the food which is thus 

 supplied, and of the support which is given to agriculture. However 

 this may be, it is certain that these two great industries are mutually 

 related, and bound to one another by common interests. Neither of 

 them can long prosper unless the other prospers also. Let our 

 manufactures come to an end, and the grower, unable to compete 

 with foreign wool-raisers, would have no market for his clip. The 

 manufacturer, on the other hand, needs constantly a reliable supply 

 of home-grown wool,, not only to regulate the cost of his raw material, 

 but also to insure soundness and uniformity in his fabrics. 



Impartial justice and sound policy alike require that both of these 

 important departments of the nation's industry should be kept, so 

 far as legislation can thus keep them, on a footing of ecpiality, and 

 in such a position as will leave to their foreign rivals no advantage 

 over them. 



On the great questions of protection and free trade, it may be 

 expected that I should say something on an occasion like this, and 

 at a time when they are receiving more than usual attention in the 

 discussians and the journals of the day. I believe that there can be 

 no greater mistake than to suppose that the princiiiles of either free 

 trade or ju-otection are universally applicable. The policy which 

 would benefit one country might be highly injurious to another. 

 Even in the same country, the condition of things may so change, in 

 course of time, as to justify and require the abandonment of a system 

 which had been highly beneficial. Eminently, therefore, may the 

 tarift' question be regarded as a practical question. All discussion 



