^fo. 12. 



<'Bi<liMwU1>ii<ii imili iTiiHwriiiiii II ■ ■■ imriiHiiMi 



AND GARDENER'S JOURNAL. 



183 



Wc li:i\ii alreaily got soincwlmt involvctl in the ques- 

 tion of Prutnclion to lionie industrv ; Imt ivc arc noi 

 willing to refuse oui rcsjiectcJ iVienJ Garbutt a jiliicr 

 n our celu.nus. 'I'lie qiie&lion is in every account, a 

 inrst intercsUng oncto !l>c faniiint; community; Iml 

 wc do not mean to admit its claims to the prejudice of 

 other important matters, and will nut permit it to as- 

 siinie a partizan character. For oursclve?, we think 

 tie root of the \Vholo ma'.ter lii-s niueh deeper than 

 cither of our eorrespndents have yet reached. The 

 common argumcnLs, pro and eon, are quite hacknied ; 

 Rnd \vc wish thoy would go into deeper water--, or rath- 

 er look at it from a higher eminence, far above all the 

 smoke and dust of party conflict. — En. 



The riirifl--iu Reply to 8. W. 



Mk. CoLMiS — Your fluent correspondejit S. W. is 

 fc constantly dabWing with the tarilT, and is so cour- 

 teous towards Johw Farmer for not thinking as he 

 does, that I am eompeled to suspect th;\t he is deter- 

 mined to make the columns of the Fanner subservi- 

 ent to his political views, and is so anxious to confute 

 his antagonist that he some times forgets hi?nself 



I will take the frceiloni to notice a few of his state- 

 ra.^nts in answer to John Farmer. Ho says "had he 

 i(John} been as well informed on the subject of our 

 national tarifl" as he is refined and witty, he would 

 have known tLat the high tu-iJs of 1828 and 1833 did 

 not receive even a majority of tlie votes of the New 

 England States." Now if S. W. had not been so 

 anxious to expose John's ignorance, he would not 

 have made such a blunder as to dass the tarilT of 1833 

 with that of 18-3-8, as a high protective tariff. So far 

 from that of 1833 being a highly protective tariff, it wa 

 aH abandonment of the fi-etcc^ivo system and a repeal 

 of the tarilT of 18-28. This has been one of the prin- 

 cipal causes of paralizing our industry and bringing 

 the country into its present state of stagnation, de- 

 pression and embarrassmcK't. It is ttxie, as S. W. 

 states, that the tariff of 1833 did not receive even a 

 majority of the votes of the New England States, for 

 the six states had 39 votes in the House of Represen- 

 tatives, of which there were only ten in favcr of the 

 bill, viz: G from .Maine and 4 from New Hampsliire; 

 one from New Hampshire being absent. The remain- 

 ing 28 votod against the bill. Now if this strong vote 

 ef 23 to 10 against the abandonment of the protective 

 systesn and against the ropcal of the tariff, is a proof 

 that the New England States are not in favor of a 

 protective tariff, S. W. has a strong evidence of the 

 <act ; but ts me it has father the contrary appearance;. 

 In the next paragraph he ciasses the tariff of 1833 with 

 tliat of 1816, either to show John's ignorance or his 

 own knowledge. The one was about the comnrence- 

 ment of the protective systeiis, the «ther its abandon- 

 ment. 



Again ho says "John Farmer asks 'why are our 

 New England factories closed and their hands unem- 

 ployed at this time Y '' He lets a manufacturer of his 

 own tow.i answer, by stating " that a protective tariff 

 would not help them, for they have the whole of the 

 home market without foreign competitio?%j" but here 

 S. W. lias left a hole to creep out at, for the manufac- 

 turer wlio gave tho answer, is one of coarse cotton 

 goods ; liis answer, therefore, is correct, as far as that 

 kind of goods is concerned. But, Mr. S. W., John's 

 question was a general one, and appliecf to all our 

 branches of manufacturing indi'stiy, and you gave 

 the answer as such, which goes to say tliat our manu- 

 facturers are notinterfered with by forei;;n competition. 



Again he says " the difference of opinion between 

 John and myself is simply this, I want all our great 

 national interests, agriculture, manufactures and com- 

 merce, protected by sound and equal laws, but he 

 seems to embrace the delusive notion that we stimulate 

 the manufacturer by taxing the other interests." Now 

 Mr. S. W. if oiij manuficturfrc " ha-ve all the homei 



market » ith a liiir demand for export,' how can a pro- 

 tective tariff Ire a ta.\ on the constsiiTer f AVere itiere a 

 duty, no matter how heavy, laid on imported water or 

 air, I ilo not think that it would be much of a tax on 

 us, who diink and bre.illi. 



S. "W, is corrc'Ct when he states tliiit "John Farmer 

 docs not know that the maiuilacturing interests of the 

 United States lias been fostcR'd mure than any other 

 interest." Nor does any other man, for comiuerce has 

 received hundreds of dollars as protection where the 

 manufacturer has received one. 



Again ho s.ays, that "so far from specie going out 

 of the country, it never goes out w hen it is iiidispcnsa- 

 bl • for a currency at home." Ifsoajtoor ami needy 

 community will never want money. This is to me 

 rather a new notion; and 1 should guess that some of 

 our Western States will soon have a plenty of it, for 

 they have been pretty destitute of a currency of any 

 kind for some time. This (s a vronderful age for new 

 things and wonderful improvements; it was formerly 

 the notion of us working folks, thai a community 

 would be rich just in proportion as they were industri- 

 ous and econemica!, and that in proportion as they 

 bought less than they sold, and earned more than they 

 spent, tliat they would have money plenty, indepen- 

 dent of " paper rags," African shells, or any other sub- 

 stitute. 



But I would ask S. W., and every honeit afnd can- 

 did man, what is the reason that the experience of this 

 country for the past20 years must be set at naught, and 

 we yet keep prateing and writing about protective tar- 

 iffs and free lr»fe, as if they had never been tested by 

 experience, and as if there w-as nctbi;ig for us to do 

 but to talk and write. 



When the " abominable" tariffs of 1822 and 1828 

 were passed, the country was made to re-echo from 

 one end of the union to the other wi'li their anticipated 

 dreadful efforts. Our commerce would be destroyed, 

 our ships rot at the wharves ; our laborers wotild be 

 made dependent beggars; the I'arniers and merchants 

 would be ruined by the enormous taxes that they 

 would have to pay, to raise Ufl a inanufaciurmg airis- 

 tuarixy. Well, what was the result; those tariffs went 

 into operation, and strange to tell, none of these dire 

 efTects followed, but the very reverse occurred in every 

 case. There never was a country more prosperous, 

 nor one where labor and skill were m«re liberally re- 

 warded than in the United States from 1822 to 1832. 

 Tlicn commerce increased with a double ratio ; our 

 cities aiivanccd with rapid strides; laborers of every 

 class found employment and ample compensation ; our 

 farmers and merchants were prosperous ; and the coun- 

 try advanced rapidly towarils wealth and prosperity. 

 Our currency was as sound and as g<?od as it could be ; 

 it was not surpassed in the civilized world ; a dollar at 

 one part of the Union was a doJlar at the other, and 

 by paying the postage of a letter, " our paper rags" 

 could be converted into gold or sih er at the pleasure of 

 the holder, and the facilities for exchange were such, 

 tliat distance was scarcely realized by our merchants. 

 But our wise and knowing ones were nst content with 

 this state of things. We must have a change, and 

 with that change we were to have a better currency, 

 and better times for every thing; but we uusst have a 

 change, and a change we have get. Yet I fear that it 

 will be a very hard matter for even our wise and know- 

 ing heads to tell wherein th*t change has benefited 

 the country since 1832. 



Yours, most rcspectfuSy, 



AVILLIAM GARBUTT. 



WhcatlanJ, 1812. 



For the New Genesee Farmer. 

 Protective Tariff.~No. 3. 



Another reason urged in support of a Protective 

 Tariff is, that it will prevent a consequent drain of our 

 ipecie The argurnent that a jvrohititiin of im.port.? 



would permanently increase the amount of specie in 

 this country, in its practical effects, would ultimately 

 destroy all couimercf, and in my judgment, it is wholly 

 based upon the fjise premises that wc can sell 

 every thing and buy nnlhitig. I grant that when any 

 nation buys a large amount more than they sell, that 

 the coin must be cxiwrted to liqudate the debt ; but the 

 next year's purchase of the debtor nation will undoubt- 

 edly I** enough less than the Jurnier, to restore tho 

 ciiualibrium of the coiiimertial world, which can bo 

 accomplished in no other way than by a return of tlio 

 specie to that nation where there is a deficiency and 

 the greatest dinii^uid. There it will assuredly find its 

 way, because, like every other article of coimntrce, it 

 must go wdierc it ommandsthc highest price. 



But "suppose that wc levy an additional duty of 20 

 percent, on all articles which we consider the absolute 

 necessaries of hfc, the result would bean increase of 

 [iricc in our market. Cannot the British manufactur- 

 er sell to some extent 83 before at the same profit, by 

 merely paying into our Custom House the additional 

 20 per cent, tarifl', and reimburse himself by being ena- 

 bled to sell his goods at tho advance price? Another 

 reason urged, is that England and other countries will 

 not admit our bread stufl's without paying enormous 

 duties, and that if we were to retaliate, it would of ne- 

 cessity compel them to come to terms of reciprosity. 

 This I bclfevc is the natural feelirig of all. It has 

 been the last and most difficult point for nie to relin- 

 quish, for I was once in favor of a Trutccti^e Tariff 

 and a credit currency. I still hold my.self open to con- 

 viction, ajid if I can be convinced (hat my present 

 views are incorrect, I am ready to relinquish them, be- 

 lieving that I am not one of those who if "convinced 

 against his will is of the same opinion still." 



If I mistake not, wc have tried the retaUatiiig system 

 ■once, and I wou'.d ask what evidence is there, that we 

 shall be more likeiy to succeed upon a second trial ; 

 and is not the tendency r.f public opinion in the old 

 world altogether in favor of free trade principles ; are 

 not all parties i*i England scheming pr-aceably to gft 

 rid Oi the system, on account that the mass of the peo- 

 l>le can no longer sustain life under its oppressive bur- 

 den? 



Do not the starving inilliojis attribute our prosiierity 

 to the practice of I'rce Trade by our Government 1 

 Shall wc disappoint them by our example and deprive 

 them of every hopel Shall we return to a system of 

 taxation that is the cause of the premature death of 

 20,000 human beings annually 1 and that too on one 

 small island of our own kindred blood ? 



But admit for argument that the retaliating system 

 would bring England (o o^ir terms of reciprosity, what 

 would be the effect uiKin the price of Bread stuffs'? 

 would the price here materially advance ? would we . 

 not then come in competition with wheat from the 

 Baltic, from Russia, Germaiiy, Poland, and all other 

 grain growing countries, and that too where labor is 

 cheaper than with us, and even less than it is in Eng- 

 land ] How can we then compete with either of 

 those Nations in a foreign market, under any system of 

 high prices ? 



I take the position that American labor must abso- 

 lutely come in competitiozi with that of Europe, unless 

 we adopt the Chinese policy, and destroy all commerce 

 and live entirely within outselves, (a system whol^ 

 impracticable to adopt in this enlightened age). 



What are v.e to understand by commerce ; is it not 

 an intercourse of trade and an exchange of products 

 or manufactures between the several nations of the 

 Globe ? and how can wc exchange our products and 

 manufactures fordyestulTs, hides, or West In'Iia goods, 

 with Spain, Mexico, or the South American States, 

 without meeting England and all other commercial 

 nations in competition for the same trade? And hovT 

 can wc €-ch»rige pr..Juct3 with P.ijssia, France of 



