{"character_count": 5794, "word_count": 1031, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9642999768257141], "ccnet_perplexity": [1844.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
| It. III

 must be done" This is the language the

 restnctlonlsts address to others. Can any

 thing be more insolent? Can any thing be

 more fraudulent? Does it not propose to

 the State to put its hands into the pockets of

 It's subjects, against their will, and for no just

 object? Does 1t not practise despotism up-

 on the minds, as well as upon the free action, of citizens? It is true, we are told to suffer

 the present evil, for the sake of an ultimate

 greater good; but that, as we shall show, Is

 an error No such good is ever returned.

 Besides, this is universally the plan of knaves

 and tyrants. It is quite as insulting as the

 offence it is brought to palliate. What, shall

 he, who is robbing our purses, tell us 1t is

 done for our future good Shall he who is

 trampling upon our highest rights, prate to us

 of future good Have we no faculties to dis

 eern what makes for our own welfare And

 must we yield our judgments and consciences

 to the same hateful authority that despoils us

 of our property?

 The objection that tariff laws operate une- qually, good under every government, has special force under the peculiar government of the United States Adopt which theory you may, as to the abstract nature and func- tions of government, there can be no dispute as to the duties of the United States govern ment in the premises. It is imperative that its laws should be equal. The nature of the federal compact, the history of its origin and design, and the instrument which declares it's powers, alike proclaim in bold, solemn, une- quivocal terms, the sacred equality of the States. How much this equality is impaired by tariff system, we shall not now proceed to say. Let controversy, forced upon the long-suffering and generosity of noble DOT ton of the Unlon-a controversy that came near involving the fairest people of earth in bloody, fratricidal war-declare its history. We have not the heart

 The system, again, violates every principle of an enlightened political economy. And here we hardly know where to begin. In contemplating the fitness of the argument, we feel emphatically what the French call the < embarrassment of wealth." The field of argument is so broad, that you may put in your sickle anywhere with safety Trace the working of tariffs from beginning to end, 1t will be found to be disastrous But our space warns us to conGne ourselves to sin gle train of argument

 We impose tariAs,'' urge their advocates, < in order to stimulate domestic industry.'' This Is their strong position. Let us see how it is. The reason why an import duty is necessary 10 establish or continue any branch of business, IS that it is less product i've than other kinds of business. The capi- tai and labor invested in 1t do not secure so large return as they might, employed in some other way, and consequently are with drawn. Men are unwnilhg to ueyotU tileil means and skill to that which IS bringing them profit much inferior to what is gained in other similar pursuits To meet the difli- culty, government contrives plan, by which competition in that particular line is excluded, and those who prosecute it enabled to sub sist. The rate of profit Is raised to the ave- rage rate of profits in all kinds of employ ment. But how has this been done' Why, by subtracting the whole amount of labor and capital engaged in the new protected bu- siness, from other business. The effect has been to produce a mere transfer of labor and capital Neither the one nor the other has been increased. Money has been taken from the pockets of one class of men, and put into those of another. What one class has gaitl- ed, another has lost. One method of indus try has been encouraged, but all other me- thods have been depressed. Labor and capi- tai in particular department have been rem dered more productive, by diminishing and exhausting their energies in other deparf- ments. What general advantage has there been in this? In what way has industry been stimulated' By diminishing its pro- ductiveness in ninety-nine branches, in order that the hundredth branch may be raised to the average productiveness of what the others were before This is stimulating industry with aevengeancea9 It could only be equaled jn folly by the policy of surgeon who should drain the blood from every limb in the body, to force 1t into finger that in some way or another had become paralyzed; or by that of gardener who should carefully draw the earth from the roots of his vigorous plants, that he might heap it up about some feeble and ricketty shoot.

 But the working of the system does not stop here. It is impossible to impose pro- tecting duty on any article, without imcreas-

 ing the price of it. If the price be not in creased, the duty is useless; but if the price be increased, that increase has two very de- leterious effects First, the demand for that particular article is arrowed-since fewer persons are able to purchase it at the ad- vanced rate-and consequently the demand for the labor employed on it is diminished and, secondly, rise of the price of any one article, entering into general consumption, raises the cost of production of all others, and to that extent injures them in the foreign market. sIf we can raise cotton, for in- says simple but learned writer, < at ten cents pound, and bring it into mar ket as cheap as other nations, we have as good an opportunity as they. for selling it. If we can raise it at nine cents, we can un- dersell them, and supply the whole market: or if we sell it at the same price as before, we gain one cent more on the pound If, by in crease of the expenses of living,n (an effect that must always follow the establishment of protective duty,) "we cannot raise for less than eleven cents pound, they will under