Cotton Fabrics and the Tarin'.
{"character_count": 5824, "word_count": 1072, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9661999940872192], "ccnet_perplexity": [1301.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
musL KNOW oelleI LHdh ~ put III --''N W


rates Of duties on Iron, Wares, Cloths, &c. and


compute that because there are such duties,
| therefore our People are ta1ed SO much on this


or that article. BY this rule, our People are now


paving three times as much for Their Glass Ware


as they would pay but for the Tariff, although The


fact cannot be disputed that we are buying this


very Glass Ware thirty per cent. cheaper than VIC


ever did before the present Tariff was enacted


So it is with most if not all the articles on which
| the Journal represents the Tariff as taxing the


Farmers. If they deal with honest Wing mer-


chants, they will find these very articles as cheap


in the average as they did when the Tariff was
! down to 90 per cent. Time and again have VIC
challenged the Free Traders to meet this test


You say that the Tariff has made Goods cheap
er, and you prove it by showing that the duties
are higher now we insist on going behind your


inference to the actual tact-"e appeal from your


logic to Price Currents and Merchants LedgeTs


from your deduction that fabrics ought TO be


higher to the fact that they are not. Don't pick


out some one or two particular articles, but como


square up to the mark and prove, if you can, that


ou. People are paying more for their Iron, Hard


ware, Glass, Glass Ware, Brass Kettles, Screws,


Buttons, Pins, Cloths, etc. which arc now made


at home under Protective Tariff than they did


pay when the larger part of them were bought
abroad under low Revenue Duties Don't shlrk
the Main Question. But this is just the ques.
ton which our opponents are careful to evade.-


Thou nips nuth hara nd thorp m article like
Sugar and Molasscs, which have gone up because
of short product at home and abroad last year
but to any general comparison of prices we chal-
lenge them in vain. They prefer darkness 10
light on that point.


A desperate effort has been made by them TO
stand on Cotton fabrics, but we think with sig
nal ill,sHccess. There is good deal of sparring
back and forth between the British Importers
and the Domestic Goods men, with regard to the
prices and values Of their respective goods, in
which the advantage seems to us entirely on the
side of the Americans. Take the British side of
the story alone, and ii has only proved that GER
tain fabrics might be sold here in the absence Of
Protective Duties cheaper than Manu-
fncturcrs make them. But, aside from the an
swer of the Americans, Your goods which you
declare equal to ours are equal in show only
9 they are made Of poorer stock, are lighter, finn.
ser, and have not half the wear in them of
those with which you compare them, comes the
farther consideration You say these goods
would be cheaper under low Tariff, but they
,oere not afforded cheaper TO the consumers,
while the duties were low. If they were as low
as you state in Europe, you importers and Job
bers charged us much 10 the consumers as row
and divided the extra profit between you.'-But
We look beyond even this, to consideration that
goes to the root of the matter. We say 10 both
parties at once, Gentlemen Importers and Manu-.
facturers your dispute TO the qualities and
prices Of your respective fabrics, is matter Of
business, which may interest and profit the pub
lie, SO keep il up as long as you like. Whether
you Importers sold too high formerly, or you
Manufacturers sell too high now, is unessential-
settle it between YOU We have half g mind TO
believe you both. But this fact is virtually as
sumed and certainly proved by you bott-that
Cotton fabrics can be made here as cheap, within
a fraction, as any where in the world. That is
the main point with us Labor being dearer here,
we viii say 1t costs Il cent yard more TO make
average Shectings and Calicoes here than in Eng
land, which is less than the cost and charges OF
exporting the Cotton and importing the Goods
now it is settled to our mind that ii is best for our
Country to haze these goods made from her opn
Cotton, by her Own Labor, on her own Soil-and
OF course to levy such duties on their lmporta
ton as will ensure their fabrication here. This
is to us matter of clea7 National policy Now
If MeSSrs. Marshall & Co. and A. & A. Law.
renee, and S. n. Dexter and P. H. Schenck,
&c. do not make Cotton Goods as cheap as they
can fairly be made, and afford living profit, lie,
us proclaim the facts let us point out TO other
capitalists and men of capacity and enterprise
the inviting prospect which is here opened TO
them. Let us cali all into the field. No man has
or thousands of men can have monopoly; any
one can make such goods, and there are fifty wa
ter powers unimpyoved to one which is employed.
Cotton, Coal, Steam, Skill, Capital, Labor-all
may be had cheap enough by any body who knows
how to employ them to advantage. Now, Messrs.
Edwin Hunt, David Hale & Co. if any Cotton
fabric can be made in England ioT nine cents il
certainly can be made here for tea so long as our
Protective Tariff assures to our producers mar
ket. Now II the New-Yo1k Mills, or Merrimac,
or any ether Company, is charging fourteen cents
for cloth that might be made for ten, do you or
any of your friends set to making and selling It
at eleven, and 50 ger rapidly rich. Every body
will buy your goods Of you advertise them in The
Tribunel-p7ovidcd they be really as valuable as
The fourtoen-cent fabrics now madc-thcre is no
fear that you Won, have Custom enough. You


VIII make nice Jobs for our brck.makers, ma
chinists and carpenters-snug berths for many
ioremen, nc. and give employment to hundreds


who will thank you for it. You will become
careful, popular, benefceat-and soon we shall
haye YOU converted into tirst-rate Protective Tar.
if men. as Abbott Lawrence, Nathan Appleton,


90 Sc have been before you. WHY not try