{"character_count": 5819, "word_count": 1050, "ccnet_language_score": [0.953000009059906], "ccnet_perplexity": [1643.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Nh,g Yoar.s ' Men.Hha AdjoSIned Msriiar q tbs
Committee w be held ut broadway Hone on Friday Even
ni' Aos0'' ct 0''''kD DAVID GRaAaM Il 2,f Chairman


Gaas5rs Gass = ,RsTax x TaytoH. ssecre,.rio.. as
The 'Neophyte Advocates OF Protection


to the Farmer.


There is large and growing class ol noisy
professors of friendship for the Protective policy
who very recently were its deadlicst, most vocif.
erous enemies. After cXhausting their stock of
argument, and statistics, and satire, on the abb
surdity Of thinking to increase the Wealth and
Industry of Nation by restricting its Trade,
they have come square round in favor Of Proec.
tion, and are trying to pass themselves off as the
Simon Pures-the genuine Protectlonlsts, while
those who have for years patiently met their lbes,
and exposed their statistics, and reuted their ar
guments against any Protection at all, are to
be ridden oyer as knowing nothing about the
matter or as no true friends Of Protection The
+nsophytes' who but yesterday were chanting
the praises Of Free Trade arc now vehemently
proclaiming that we old-schoo Protectonists are
not Protective enough They tell us that we
are for partial, they for universal Protection =
We (they say would protect the Manufacturer
they are for protecting all classes, all pursuits.
but especially that of the Farmer. Let US look
into this business:


How do they propose to protect the Farmer
BY higher duties on the Wheat, Corn, Pota-
toes, Fruit, Beef, Pork, Cotton, Hay, &c, he pro.
duces2 That is manifestly absurd. We export
most of these articles now and import very little
Of them all-probably not to a hundrcdth part the


value of our Exports. A duty of thousand pei


cent. on all these articles would not raise their


price one per cent. And beside, the Tariff bill


got up by these neophytes last winter did not in


crease but largely reduced the duties on these
very artcles--rcduced the duties on Agri-


cultural products fully onehalf on the average


So it won't answer their turn to pretend to be in
favor of higher duties on raw Produce:


Let us give one example of their manner OF
helping the Farmers by higher duties when they
attempt it. They undertook, or pretended to un-
dertake, to help the Farmers in reddlus!ing the
duties on Wool by their Tariff blll OF last winter.
They commenced by taking of the specific three
oants pound imposed on all imported Wool cost
ing over seven cents a pound by thepresent Wing
Tariff, leaving the duty on all such Wool as our
Farmers produce only thirty per cent. instead OF
over forty, es at present. They then cut down
the duties on all Woolen goods SO that the highest
rate should be thirty per cent or just the same as
on Wool, leaving no margin at all for the manu-
facturer, while they cut down the duties on all
plains, kerseys, mits, gloves, socks, drawers,
shirts, SC. to t,oenty cent. Here is a discrmn-
alton of ten per cent. against the American produ-
Ger The capitalist who knows how and where TO
sell these articles, upon the adoption of this Tariff
must say, /" If import Wool and have it made
sup by American workmcn, | must pay thirty
per cent. duty but if buy my Wool where IL
is cheapest and hire it made up by the cheap labor
.of England, France or Germany, can then get
the goods in at twenty per cent" Is not this
beautiful! device for encouraging and rewarding
our own Industry?


But ON the cheap, coarse Wools and Woolens,
this Mckay Loco.Foco bill played the game
OF protecting all classes (but especially the For
eign Manufacturer and his agents here) still
more strongly. Wool costing less than seren
cents per pound, free of dirt, is allowed to come
In under our present Tariff ut five per cent duty,
on tho ground that it never can be worth the
while of our Farmers to raise so poor Wool as
this and that fifty per cent, duty would only raise
the cost to ten and half cents, duty paid, which
is cheaper than our growers can afford to pro-
duee any sort of Wool. So this cheap, coarse
Wool, being regarded as entirely a foreign pro-
duct is allowed by the present Tariff TO come i'll
st fiye per cent while the fabric mainly pro.
duced therefrom, coarse Woolcn Blankets, for
negro clothing, bedding, &c Is charged fifteen
DER cent.-a difference of ten per cent. IN favor
of the American manufacturer. But Loco.Foco-
ism undertakes to give here signal proof of It's
devotion to the Farming interest by raising the
duty ON this cheap, coarse Wool TO fifteen per
cent. and reducing the duty on the cheap Woolen
Blankets to ten per cent. Here, again, is dis.
elimination of five per cent. against the Ameri-
can workman. The capitalist says, l can buy
nv Wool in New. Zealand for six cents a pound;
] can get it manufactured in England on its way
here quite cheapy, and then ! can import the

cloth ior ten per cent. but If bring the Wool
home raw, and have it made up by American
labor, must pay duty OF fifteen per cent Thus
the Farmer not only loses The sale of his Wool
but of his Provisions, Full, Sc which the cloth.
makers would consume. Yet this is Loco Foco
g Protection to all classes The same thing is
done with Iron-the common Pig. Bar, or
Rolled is taxed by the Loco Foco Tariff bill fifty
to seventy -6ve per cent. while all finer kinds OF
Iron, Steel and Iron Manufactures, are let in at
thirty per cent. The Iron. makers are told to
look at the duties on Iron, and are expected not
to see that these will avail them nothing while
every thing made of Iron is lei in at hall those
rates. The Iron-maker canno, sell his Iron, be-
cause most things made of Iron allowed to
come in a, halt as much duty; and 50 he tiads
the show of Protection Il celusion; the Farmer
finds tho furnaces and iorgcs stopped and no
marke, for his vegetables, his charcoal, wood. &c.
The bill imposes duties most unequally, bat