{"character_count": 1696, "word_count": 296, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9247999787330627], "ccnet_perplexity": [2289.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
pT As we cannot make the Ncw Era see that
the relative money price Of Foreign and Domestic
fabrics is an utterly uncertain and often dcusiye
criterion of the Gctuoi cost respectively At those
fabrics and that may consequently Obtain the
Foreign al Il lower None y,alustion (when they VIII
Of course flow in) vet give great deal more oi our
labor and lis products IN return for them than tor
the corresponding Domestic fabrics, we will rest
the argument and await the more general reply 10
our sIterior argument which is promised. Our
consolation is that the great mass OF impartial OBJ
servers must have seen that we may buy OF Ing
land given quantity Of Cloths and Wares for orty
Millions, which if produced here, would cost no.
minallv Fifty Millions. while for the latter We
should pay rastly less in reality Il. e. in our Fro
duct.) than Tor the former. Ii this is novelty or
mystery At The Era office, we rejoice in knowing
that it is not in scarcely village or farming neigh
borhood in the Covntry.


As to Protection chcrshing instead OF destroy
ing Commerce, (whie it somewhat changes ITS d.
rection) we NAV not make the New Era undor-
stand the principle but can it evade the facts Of
history Who n0y contends that the Protective
Tariffs of 1924 and '2S destroyed Commerce,
though it was stouily asserted that they roufd do
so before their adoption. We recollcct well the
Free Trade clanor of l82o-24, that Protection
would at once destroy Commerce and Commercial
Revenue, and render resort to Direct Take, in
evitable! Since then the tone has entirely changed
and Protection Is now assailcd creating TOO
much Revenue from Customs and leading TO Co.
vernmcnt exrravagance and prodigaiity