For fde .ifHGRSaS BlRRey. ! PROTECTINE TARIEF-
{"character_count": 5331, "word_count": 979, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9513000249862671], "ccnet_perplexity": [1059.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
For fde .IIAGRSdS Gunner.

 i PROTECTIVE TARIFF.

 3IR. EDIToR-I'here are two particular points, going the rounds of debate between tine political. parties: the whigs assert that, the duty comes off the producer, the demo- erals deny it. The whigs assert that the la riff makes goods sell lower, the democrats deny it. Now, sir, l am going to admit the wings own principles, and say the tariff brings goods lower, and the producer pays the tax, and think l will prove, that 1t Is unjust, unequal, and oppressive. When say the producer, do not mean the manu- lacturer, but the lamer-the cotton raser- As cotton is the great and leading staple of the world, l will coHdHe myself principally 10 that article. Suppose, Sir, two bales of cotton goods, come into New Orleans, one from Liverpool the other from Lowell, tie goods exactly of the same quality, and must sell at the same prieein the retail stores On the bale from Liverpool there is one hundred dollars oG a proleetjce tdr0-on the bale lram Lowell there is no duty at all The point to be aseeraiaed is, by whom is this tax paid. Does the exporting carrier pay t There IS no evidence ofthis. The ship OWL CT has the same freight for carrying the cot ton to England, HOW as before Does the importing carrier: No evidence of this- Does the Liverpool manufacturer pay it. If he does, he must make much less profit than before. There is no evidence of this; but one thing is manifest, if the British manufae- turer has to sell his goods lower to compete with the American manufacturer, he will be compelled 10 give less for the raw material; and as the European manufacturers buy three fourths olour cotton, their prices wi!lalways regulate ours. Did you ever hear of the American manufacturers paving a higher price for cotton than the British Never Never Then all this loss of price of pro duce 10 the farmer, is clear gain to the Amer ican manufacturers Aud we have always found that in times ofa high protective tariff, cotton sold much lower than when there was no such protection.

 Take another view of the same argument Two men intend putting mp stores in New Orleans The one northern manufacturer the othera Louisiana cotton planter The northern man manufactures his own goods, and brings them free of duty. The cotton planter lakes his cotton to England and exchanges it for goods of the same quality and quantity of the othcr. He has to pay one thousand dollars fax at the Gus tom-IIoEse to land hIs goods: these two men put up their stores side by side, and muStseIl at the same price if they sell at all. Then the planter must lose one thousand dol lars of his capital, which is clear gain to the northern man. But do you say that the plan ter gets his goods that much cheaper in Eng land, that he can afford to pay the thousand dollars tax and make the. profit. If he gets his goods cheaper, the British manulac- turer will cheapen his cotton so as 10 make his usual profit. It is boasted on all hands that the manufactures of England, are im- mensely profitable to their owners, then they must purchase the raw material lower, or they could not sustain themselves.

 Fakeanother view of the subject upon the 1 suppositon that the tariff makes goods sell lower, and VIC will be compelled to arrive at the same conclusion. If the Protective tariff cheapens goods, it must be from one of three causes: The manufacturer makes less 1 profit, or he hires aborcrs lower, or he buys the cotton cheaper The inst cannot be true :; or why would they continually call for more tariff The second IS not true; for the lar

 mefs of New England complain that they cannot hire laborers on tine farm as they for merly did, the manufacturers can afford to give so much higher wages, they are deprived of hireings. The last then is true: The cotton IS bought lower, and this in addition to the blowing up of the banks, makes eve ry thing cheaper; as lands, houses, ne- groes, horses, cows, Sc. Before the tariff of l lS42, cotton brought from Hinc to len cents. 1 Now, not more than Sjf CT seeeR something like Aree cents less in the pound Say the crop IS t5eo million Of balcs, annually, and this reduction will be loss of at least teB 1 dollars 0H eeerg balc, on an average. Then I this will amount 10 loss of tlrcaty millions { of dollars every year to the cotton planters. l And that much less money will be in circu- Iation; there are then forty millions less of money in circulation, since l842 than would i have been, but for the Protective Tariff 1 This would make capital enough for splen- i did Bauk But it may be inquired, how such an operation can keep out British goods l If they, by buying cotton cheaper, under the protective tarff, and cheapen the cotton iii proportion 10 the highest of the duty, they ! can still bring them in the same undera high as well as low duty. By their vile discrimi- { nations, which iboy (the whigs) call wise :; ! valuing coarse cotton cloth at 20 centsa yard, which is not worth more than six cents and their laying this per cent al yalorem, so that the duty on the yard Is more than 1t will I sell for in the stores This amounts to pro- hibiton; and thus, with allthe depression of ihe price of cotton, inc British manulaeur- ] CTS cannot come into the market at all, oT i. meet the impedimsnts presented hY such a method of management.