Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-02

posing n case. Four individuals who live on this
side of the Tyber, deyute a portion of their labor
To the production OF four barrels of corn
each, equal to sixteen. They exchange four bar
for four hats. When the exchange is effected
tine wealth derived from this portion of THAR labor
consists oftwclvc barrels of cosn and four hats. But
one of them who is a great patriot, and friend to
domestic Industry" says 10 the others; if, instead of
buying our hats Of this strange" this ..J~Vreigncr,"
who lives three yards over the Tyber, YOU will cacir
give me hulf a barrel of corn more for your hats
than you gave him, l will make them. They con-
sent. We'll, what is the state of the case now? Three
of thcin, as before, make twelve barrels of corh, and
the fourth makes four hats. Their wealth, ut the
end of the year, IS precisely the same as in the for
mer case; wit. this di1crcnce,-tbat the coru-mak-
os arc poorerby one and a halt O fcorn, and
the hat maker is richer by the same quantity. Now
what odis does it make whether the communities
separated by Goose-Crcek or the great Allan
tic: Observe however, that this statement is much
more favorable to the manufacturers than the real
case. The iiot-,nahcr could not, with that po,,ion
OF his labor with which he made the four barrels of
corn, make the four hats, or there would be no pre-
text Tor his demanding an additional price for them.
The consequence would be, that there would he a
loss % the. society equivalent To the difference i'm the
productive value of his new and old employment.
and the corn makers would have to get some of
their hats elsewhere, to put up with worse ones, or
Inc wculahavc TO cncrcach on anotber. portion of his
labor in order to make them. whichswould be itself
u SN'iiNN VI - 4 al dhti-SDGlUI fUEftue tea che;
that 4 nation can never attain the Wgbest degree OF
prosperity until it shuts itself ont from all inter
course with the rest of the world; but it is to mis-
take the nature of man, and the sI,3ritsof the times
to imagine that the great laws f76afarc can be
controlled by the puny efforts = .1Fscal states
mcii. Nations have experience advantages to
hc derived from a liberal infeYc66rse. They are
sensible that 1t is 10 this source that tliev arc inlcbt-
I'd ior their prosperity and happiness; aud that to
this source they are to look for those improvements
which Will render all the treasures OF The world,
physical ana moral,-thc wealth, freedom, knew
ledge, which are the accumulated results of the la-
Dor aud experience of mankind, the common pro-
perty of the human race. The assertion that we
support Foreigners, in the sense in which it is made.
IS uniounded. If we support them, in the same wav
they support us.-lf we stimulate their industry.
they stimulate ours. What appears to be meant is
this,-'hat while we buy of them every thing they
make, they only buy OF US a portion of what we
make. Now, would it be good policy in a nation.
more than in an individual, to unarrcI with a ueich.
Dor, who receives three fourihs of what il produces.
because he will not agree to take the other fourth.
unless he could thereby be induced to chance his
SYSTEM, and take the whole? Even then it would
be Il question of the extern, of the sacrifice made tn
obtain this good. Bat it would be uncandid and
disinsenuous III tie advocates of the manufacturing
policy TO say thar their object is To coerce foreigners
INFO a system of free trade. They would recrc,
such Il consequence of our policy; and if every ma
ton IN the world would proclaim perfect freedom
IN trade, it would only make them more claaorous
for restriction.
MIR. Chairman: If have been successful in PROV
ins' t'at there IS no pecuriary indemnity for the
loss the consumers sustain, by making adva noes To
enable certain em~ploymcnts 20 be carried OH, which.
without such advances, would be unproductive, il
Is ciear, (without resorting to the collateral losses
which have been memtioucd0 that the whole a.
mount otthe national wealth will be diminished. 1t
remains TO consider whether there be any other
conversation tor This lImipIfinn n ,,l ,I
whether the distribution of it is Just, and within
fhe legitimate powers of congress.
we arc promised n compensation by being made
independent of foreign powers. But how can we
promote on: independence by becoming moor? This
idea OF independence does not refer 10 n state OF
peace, but a state OF war. /, would be absurd IN
say mat IN peace, we are more dependcnt on for
eiSn nations than they are on us. The fact is the
reverse. A nation that produces the raw material
Is more independent than one that fnbricatcs it. 1t
VIII be otherwise II we push the MANUFACTURING no
hey, and become exporters Of manufactures 1t
refers 10 Il stale OF war, and supposcs that durinn
war, "c nave 10 pay so dear for many things we
require that we are justified in GOING TO a consider
able expense IN tine OF peace to learn how TO make
them. But this applies to wal with orly cne natl
on-Englaid. In a war with any other nation.
there would be no serious impeachment to our OH
tanning what we wanted. But suppose we have a
war with England one year in ten, or even one in
hVe:--"ou!d 1T be good policy to pay fay per cent
"' " gwen Vudhliiy OF GOODS. Tor tour wears. IL o.
der 10 avoid paying one hundred per cent. for one
year: IL may be good policy; but it is certainty
very bad arithmetic. A ti,er statement; of the
question would be to ask whether it would be GOOD
policy TO give fifty per cent for twenty wears. TO a.
void paying one hundred per cent for ono ve,r. 10,
1t wepursue that pacific policy Which becomes US
which IS necessary to perfect our institutions, and
10 give eihcacy TO our example abroad; and should
NOT undertake to go "a colonelIing" i'm favor of uni.
''i''i ioe''y' we nave no reason III expect to be at
war Win any power in twenty years-least of all
WIN England. The principles of the Holy Aui,nc,
are not less hostile 10 her constitution than IN ours.
and II they really entertain the DESIGNS agoi, ~
when are imputed to them, it is not only our inter-
est to cultivate the relations of anity with ench r.
u'ef, out to strengthen the ties Of Connection: for if
their own Tears should ever permit that association
10 attempt To pcrpctrate their designs, I believe.
next 10 our own vaior. our best security is the at
tachment o. the people of England to the principles
OIL ifee government. Yet the policy
IS, to weaken the ties subsisting between the two
countries, ana to destroy our mutual interest In
ehcn other 5 prosperity.
hut TIE poin o, view III which this poIicv &c most
seriously calculated to affect orr iudcn.nIenco j.
ny us gross Injustirc-by its tendency to produce
"'scoIu ana DIVISION among the several classes of
S"ciety, and the different states. Can il be SUM-
poSeo that congress can be permitted to enrich, one
So 100 q u expense OF The others, and TO aggran4
ai|e some states by prostrating the rest, without
producing these divsious?-and is there NOT more
strength III union-in ~brotherly love and affection,
IMAM III all = the wealth of the world without thems
mat SIR, has been the effect of this policy wlene-
Ver"nd wherever it has been tricd?-Wha rat has been
its effect in England? WHY to raise ono mart IF
society to the highest pitch of luxury, and to de-
press the other to the most abject poverty. Even
VIC Quarterly Review, a work devoted to the min
ls'ry' aud which makes every sacrifice TO conceal
'noif sins, admits that ore person in eleven receives
parish relief Some writer's say one in seven
some one in five. Such - the cfrec, of the svs,.,,