{"character_count": 5628, "word_count": 991, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9520999789237976], "ccnet_perplexity": [1605.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



A. Nes Hdoea Conn. Convention to-day


10 this Ctr tomorrow. (ThuIsdsy,lf. NJ


At -7i51ay. on Frlda7 evening.


H. will he AT S.raorc Springs Saturday and will SPEAK
there meeting shall have been called by The Wings


At A-e,eark, n. J. on Monday next, ut 2. NJ.


A; Trsnon n. J. state Convention. Tuesday, lGth


The Tarin Question. concluded.
Hon. srLAs WRIGHT. o. s. Senate


But even according to your way of reckoning,
it seems that the presen: Tariff affords the Far
mer direct and efficient Protection on three Sta
ples-Wool, Hemp and Sugar-(ihe latter by no
means Southern product on!y) You argue
that Hemp cannot DC much longer protected, be-
cause We are beginning to raise it so cheap that
we can export it at profit. Yet we shall
doubtless continue TO import some descriptions OF
Hemp long after we have been enabled TO export
other kinds l4rgeIy and steadily. l think the
fact that we ere beginning 10 produce 50 cheap
as to export is "a gratifying evidence of the ten.
dency and general effect of Protection in reduc-
ing prices without rendering production unpro.
ftable.


So of Sugar. You say the duty is high, but,
as it yields large Revenue, you do not COM
plain. Suppose it were othc-@ise-that our
Southern planters should como to produce Sugar
so cheaply and abrndan,ly that none could be
imported. Now, says your doctrine, we must
knock down. the duty. But say, Let US con-
sider Our planters have improved their lands,
their processes, their machinery, until they afford
us Sugar cheaper than formerly; and because
they do, we take of the duty and let in sharp
competition among them. This is poor encour.
agemcnt. | would rather reduce the duty in
case it were proved that they could nat produce
Sugar Ut fair price, and keep it on when its ten
dency was plainly to reduction Of price by
Improvement in the home production.


But Wool is to be considered You say you
would tax Wool higher than articles not pro.
duced here, but not 50 high as TO prohibit It's
Importation. If you mean to use prohibit in
the absolute sense of forbdding, agree with
you. But if you mean that the duties on Wool
should be laid with view mainly to deriving
Revenue thereirom, dissent | think il OF far
greater consequence that we should grow the
great bulk Of our own Wool than that we should
raise a few thousands more or less of Revenue on





that you consider the raising of Revenue the
main purpose of Government, to which every
thing else must conform and adapt itself.


Let me point out one grave error in which you
seem to me involved, and which discolois and
clouds all you aiterward say on Manufactures.
You say that if the duty en- Wool were pTohib-
itory,


1t would give to the Farmers who raised Wool perfect
monopoly of The market, They could co,nnand their own
price, according to the demand of Wool the foreign article
being excluded"


Now if only one man owned Sheep, and all
beside were forbidden to grow Wool, can con-
ceive such result Of prohibitory duties as you
here assert. can see how prohibition of For
eign Wool might temporarily raise the price
above fair standard in the actual safe of things
But, were there no other corrective the use of
substitutes for Wool would speedily correct this
Suppose tho Wool clip of this year is Sixty Nil.
lions of pounds, the amount required for our
consumption Eighty Millions cf pounds, and i'm
portation prohibited. Here is the best imaginu-
BILE chance for corner But the moment
Wool and Woolens rise above the old standards,
there is inducement and tendency 10 buy less of
Woolens and more of other Stuiis-moye Furs,
Cottons Linens, Silks, &c.-and the attempt at
monopoly will very probably result in loss to its
contrivers.-But, beyond this, nearly every sheep
and lamb is kept over-Wool bearing SO good
pfice-and next year we shall probably have
Ninety millions of pounds instead of Sixty-a
large surplus instead OF deficiency. This sur
plus must be sold, and what is not needed must
IN good part be exported. Thus the consequence
OF high prices one year would probably be low
prices for two or three succeeding years-,he du.
ties still remaining prohib,ory. There is no
possibility, while the range of employment and
investment is open to all, that one branch of in.
dustry should realize higher profits than another
merely because its productis covered by a higher
duty. You see this, Mr.. Wright, in the case OF
Wheat, Cheese, &c.-why can you not see that
the same law exists here, graduating prices and
profits TO the cost Of production and not TO the
amount Of Protection This law takes effect
on Manufactures more readily than on raw Sta.
Piles, because the capacity of producing them is
practically without limit and the increase of
production may be instant, whereas the product
of Wool, or even Grain, cannot be increased at
months notice. But the law though more taydy
in its operation, exists here, and will make Itself
felt and respected.


! think l need spend no more time on your
horrors of monopoly and prohibition. The Far.
mers OF this country have long enjoyed mono.
poly of supplying all the rest OF us with our
common Fruits, Vegetables, Wood, &c. but l
do not think they have ever taken, or ever can
take, much advantage of it. l think get as
many peaches for sixoencc this year as ever
did, considering the size. Is there any reason
why Wool should not be governed by the same
lawi


You seem to labor under constan; and pain.
full apprehension that Protection will deprive US
of a sufficient Revenue. l really think this Sori
OF talk should be given up, since the utter failure
of the Repeuuc Tariff to afford Revenue, and