154 



THE NEW GENESEE FARMER, 



Vol. 3 



We have received from a .eapected cuirespomient in 

 Michigan, several articles on the subject of a Tariff 

 for protection. Our correspondent shows only one 

 eide of the question, and that certainly not the most 

 |)opular. The true wisdom is to hearboth sides. We 

 certainly shall admit no articles properly speaking of a 

 partisan character, but this does not preclude the fair 

 discussion of a subject so intimately connected with 

 the agricultural interests of the country as this. Our 

 own opinions on this subject have been very fully and 

 frankly given; but wo are not the less willing to hear 

 the opinions of others for having made up our own ; 

 nor to changing or amending our opinions, whenever 

 we see reason to change or amend them. It may be 

 said that Congress having adopted the protective policy 

 there can be no farther reason for the discussion. 

 This certainly, in a government where any laws may 

 be altered or amended, does not apply ; and the subject 

 being no longer a matter of doubt and struggle, may 

 therefore be examined the more calmly. Our columns 

 will be as open to the arguments on the one side as 

 the other, and we invite discussion so far as we have 

 room, without interfering with matter of more general 

 interest. Our friend having favored us in this way, 

 will, we hope, do more for us in some way more di- 

 rectly practical. — Ed. 



For the J^eiB Genesee Farmer 

 PROTECTIVE T.\RIFF.~No. 1. 



Mr. Editoh — Of several subjects on which I wish 

 to express my views through the medium of the " T'ar- 

 mer," the one foremost in my mind at present, is the 

 •ubjectof the " Home League" or Protective Tariff; 

 from the fact, that hardly an Agricultural paper comes 

 to hand but that contains more or less argument iji 

 favor of that object. 



I propose to examine, in a cursory manner, several 

 of the arguments in favor of Protective Duties ; as they 

 occur in my daily intercourse. 



If my views are incorrect, some of your valuable 

 correspondents will be able to convince me of my error 

 through the same medium ; and if my positions can be 

 refuted bv sound logic and experience, no political bias 

 shall deter me from acknowledging my error. I have 

 no other object than my own information and the pro- 

 motion of the best interests of the fanners of America. 



In the first place, I would state, that I am in favor 

 of "Free Trade" in its literal sense, and opposed to a 

 Tariff for Protection, as a general policy. I consider 

 it nothing more nor less than indirect taxation; but I 

 cannot see why we may not as well or better (under 

 present circumstances,) be taxed for the support of Gov- 

 ernment in that way as any other. 



I am therefore in favor of a Difcriminating Tariff 

 exclusively for revenue, sufficient for the support of 

 our Government, administered upon principles suited 

 to our Republican Institutions. 



What I mean by discrimination is, that the duty 

 should be levied in such a way as to collect a revenue and 

 not oppress the laboring classes. I hold it to be unjust 

 to tax the poor man as much as the rich, for the sup- 

 port of government, by way of a duty on necessar}' 

 articles, of wliich the poor individual consumes as 

 many or more than the rich one. For that reason, I 

 am decidedly opposed to a uniform ad valorem duty on 

 all imports. I have no objection to any incidental Pro- 

 tection that may be afforded by a Tariff for Revenue 

 founded upon correct principles; but there is a material 

 difference between a Tariff for Revenue and one for 

 Protection " proper." They are directly oppsiite in 

 effect. 



A discriminating "Tariff for Revenue," if judicious- 

 ly laid, woidd not wholly prevent foreign competition, 

 or materially enhance the price to the consumer, but 

 would rather have a tendency to keep up an equilib- 

 rium of prices, and encourage legitimate commerce, in 

 opposition to prohibition and smuggling. 



It is olrvi^us, if an aiticle ha prohibited, there can be 



no revenue derived and no business left for commerce, 

 except by smuggling. Unless we import something, 

 we cannot expect to export our products to any extent 

 whatever. Whereas the object of a Tariff for the 

 " prokdion rmlij of American Manufactures,'' would be 

 to prohibit importation, and thereby cut off the govern- 

 ment Revenue, and materially enhance the price of 

 goods to the consumer. 



I sup|iortthe 'flome League" so far as it goes in 

 discouraging, by way of practice and example, the use 

 of all foreign " gcw-gaws" which are useless or injuri- 

 ous to us as a nation ; on the same ground that I would 

 support a temperance society, but doubt the expediency 

 of special legislation in favor of either subject. 



I am not opposed to the refinements of Ufe, (such as 

 do not enervate the faculties,) nor to the moderate use 

 of luxuries, proWding that we limit our expenses to our 

 income, after providing for the common casualties of 

 life. I do not wish luxuries prohibited, but admitted 

 on such terms as will collect the greatest amount of 

 revenue. Their moderate use is far preferable to a mi- 

 serly, Shylock disposition, as it has a tendency to keep 

 down overgrown wealth, and distribute the means 

 among the many. 



All the civilized nations of the earth have latterly 

 turned theu' attention more to commerce, and the pro- 

 duction of the necessaries and luxuries of hfe; In a 

 great measure, the "swords have been beaten into 

 plough shares and the spears into pruning hooks." We 

 are in the commencement of a new era, and Heaven 

 grant it to continue and progress ! 



If peace should continue and the earth bring forth 

 bountifully, and pestilence not walk abroad, nor anar- 

 chy prevail, all the nations of the earth will produce 

 more than the whole world can consume. 



What is to done with the surplus, is a subject to be 

 considered. It was calculated before the great improve- 

 ments of the day, that active employment of every in- 

 dividual four hours each day, would produce all the 

 necessaries of hfe. The facilities for producing have in- 

 creased in a short time an hundred fold ; by the use of 

 steam, the improvement in labor-saving machinery, and 

 the application of science to agriculture and the arts. 

 If this desirable state of things continue, wiiocan cal- 

 culate the immense surplus that would accumulate, un- 

 der the present rate of consumption, in half a century 

 to come \ To my mind, low prices are inevitable. 



The great strife among ci'.ilized nations, at the pres- 

 ent t^me, is for the ascendancy in comjiiercc, and the 

 facilities of production ; and lamentable to contemplate, 

 that, with perhaps one soUtary exception," the leading 

 motive that impels them onward, is the aggrandize- 

 ment of the /t-jc, and the consequent oppression of the 

 many. But the tendency of moral reason is in the as- 

 cendant, and it will ultimately prevail over mcre/wre — 

 but before that is fully consummated, all these systems 

 of government founded in oppression must crumble to 

 dust. I sincerely wish the revolution may be bloodless, 

 but come it must — the vengeance of Heaven wilt not 

 always be " stayed" upon the heads of those nations 

 that work and starve their population to death, under 

 a wicked pretence of "protecting their industry." 



I shall endeavor to show by argument, in my next 

 number, that a Proifda-t-Tarifl'is docidi'dly opposed to 

 the best interest of the farmers of America and the na- 

 tion at large. 



I anticipate that some of your readers may consider 

 the discussion of this subject as out of place in an ag- 

 ricultural paper ; on the account of its being ultimate- 

 ly connected with party politics. 



I consider it a gre.it National Cluestion, (not neces- 

 sarily a party one,) and one that concerns the farmers 

 as much as or more tlian any other class of producers, 

 and as such, I shall endeavor to treat it — wholly re- 

 gardless of party considerations, 

 ° Monroe^ Mickr^ lU% J. S. DUTTON. 



Protective Tarlff.--No. 2. 



[ propose now to examine the argument adduced in 

 support of a Protective Tnrifl". The friends of the 

 mensura maintain that it will be benoficial to the whole 

 community, from a great contrariety of reasoning. 



First, it is asserted by some of the advocates of 

 protection that a duty does not increase the price to 

 the consumer, but merely collects the government rev- 

 enue out of the toreign producer. 



Can any mon maintain that the corn laws of Eng- 

 land operate in that way 7 Mast they not admit that 

 when those laws exclude our products from the Eng- 

 lish market, at the same time they cut short their own 

 revenue, and also that the said laws are an oppressive 

 burden upon every class of community except the 

 privileged land holders. 



I would ask further, why do the American manu- 

 facturers manifest so much anxiety on ibe subject of 

 protection t Why are we told that unless the duty is 

 raised that the majority of all the manufactories will 

 be compelled to stop business for want of sufliicient 

 profits to sustain them 7 And how can the profits be 

 increased on the manufacture of a ton of iron, or a 

 piece of coarse woolen, or a pnper of pins, (by a tar- 

 ifi) unless the prices ore raised by it? The fact is, 

 and It admits of no cavil, that the prices are raised by 

 duties, and if they were not, manufacturers would 

 derive no benefit whatever from a tariff; it would be 

 all the same to them whether there was a duty or not, 

 and the niauufacturers themselves concede the argu- 

 ment and admit the principle, when they "resolve 

 that a duty upon the raw material is a tax upon the 

 manufacturer." 



Another reason set forth in support of n protective 

 taritfis, that by protecting the manufacturer you in- 

 cidentally protect the farmer, or in common parlance 

 it is called, " building up a home market," which to 

 my mind, is a subtle, deceptive cant phrase, that has 

 caused more delusion among the producing classes 

 than every other in the toriff calendar. What I the 

 manufacturers of New England consume all the sur- 

 plus of this "mighty West 1" They could not do it 

 if they were fifty times as numerous ; but I am ad- 

 monished that declamation proves nothing, so to the 

 argument of logic, fact and figurcs,on which I rely to 

 sustain my views. 



They admit that although the farmers at first would 

 have to pay a little higher price for all the goods they 

 consume, yet it would enable the manufacturer to 

 make larger profits than they now do, and the result 

 would follow that a portion of those farmers who are 

 now engaged in agriculture would abandon thcij 

 business lor that v/hich wos more profitable ; conse- 

 quently, by the operation of the infnlible laws of trade 

 (supply and demand on less competition,) the farmers 

 would obtain an equally enhanced price for their pro- 

 ducts. 



I am not prepared to say the position is wholly 

 groundless and that it is not a true one to a certain 

 extent in most cases ; but let ua examine the practi- 

 cability of the argument in this case. By refering to 

 the last census, we find that there ore five millions of 

 persons octively employed in the difierent pursuits, 

 and that 10 per cent, or five hundred thousand of thai 

 number, are engaged in trades and manufactures of 

 every description, and that the whole amount of man- 

 ufactured goods produced in the United Siotes for 

 that year, was estimated to be worth $39.'5,832,615, 

 and that the aggregate amoun^H||Uke manufactured 

 goods imported, amounted ^^^^Ko,711. Now by 

 applying simple propoilionWB^uall find the result. 

 If 500,1100 persons, by the use of machinery, produce 

 $395,832,615, how many persons will it take to pro- 

 duce $51,145,711, the amount imported that year' 

 Answer, 64,610 men, women and children. f 



is it not obvious then, that if lb« whole number o 



