{"character_count": 2156, "word_count": 385, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9559999704360962], "ccnet_perplexity": [1754.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
the Foreign articles and give the supply OF
American wants in these respects 10 Amencan
workers. The articles arc not higher than they
were under Revenue Taritf-many OF them are
lowcr-but tens of thousands of our counirymen
arc now steadily employed in making them who
ia lS42 were out of work, al half work. think
tic present arrangement is right, wise and
bcnefcent. But your principle says Moths IS
all wrong VIC must reduce the duties on all these
articles SO that they viii produce Rerenue-that
is allow of capricious nundations ofour markets
by Foreign Hats, Shoes, Clothes, &c. and thus
keep our artisans in perpetual oscillation between
Work and No Work. American Working Men
will you think Of this


You say, Mr.. Wright, that higher duties
should be imposed on luxurics than on the neces.
sarcs of hic. | concur in this most heartily, Sc
far as Revenue is the object OF duties. Put youi
Revenue Duties on Luxuries, TO the full extent
but do not on that account deprive American
workmen OF the Protection Of their Labor. LIE,
Us no, admit a delugc of Foreign Hats, Shoes, and
Clothes, Sc. merely because such articles are ne.
ccssary tor our own workmsn will make them al
as cheap as man Of conscience can ask if you
you only protect them from dsTanging competi
ton and enable them to find work the year round
Bat If they are kept idle half the year by glu
OF Foreign articles, they cannot make and you
cannot buy 50 cheap as though they had work
all the time.


You say, Sir, that you would discriminate in
| f,yor OF domestic production as far as Revenue
required" 1t seems to me that this condition
completely nuliiics your good intention. You
src perfectly willing to impose u higher duty or
Foreign products rivalng oar OWE, providing i
would not have the effect of checking importa
,ion. But that is the very effect the home pro
dacer wants-if you take care 10 agoid that,
cannot sec what he is 10 thank you for, Iot
say q farther duty would defeat The object o
the who!s-the obtaining Of revenue" But
contend that ,hc.c is another object-eQuaily es'
.sntial and far more impoItant-namely, the ffo
tsction Of our Home Industry. need not citt