Literary cadet and Rhode-Island statesman. [volume] (Providence, R.I.) 1827-1829, 1829-01-03

tho best judges ofihs bes, application other indus
try and resources.
an ready TO admit, also. that there is no coun-
try in which tho application may, Will, more safety,
be left to the intelligence and enterprise Of indlvid-
uals. than The United States.
Finally, l shall not deny, that, In all doubtful
cases, II becomes every Government to lean rather
to a confidence in the judgment Of individuals, than
to interpretations controlling Tho free exercise oiit.
With all these concessions. l think it can be rat.
isiactorily shown, that there are exceptions to the
general rule, now expressed by the phrase 'Lci US
a'One," forming cases which call Tor interpositions
Of tho competent authority, and which arc not in
consistent with the generality Of The ,ule.
!. The Theory Of LET ms alone" supposes that
all natious concur in Il perfect freedom Of commer-
cial Intercourse. Were this the case, they would,
IN a commercial view, be hut one nation, rs much
rs tho several districts composing a particular ma
iion ; and the theory would be as applicable TO the
former as 10 the latter. But this golden age of tree
trade has not yet arrived nor is there a single ma
tioR that has set the example. No nation can, in
deed, safely do -, until a reciprocity, at least, be
ensured to j.. Take, for a proof, the familiar case
Of the navigation employed in n foreign commerce
ia nation, adherine to The rule Of never intcrposIng
a couniervaiiing protection of its vessels, admits
foreign vessels into It's ports free Of duty. whilst it's
own vessels are subject to a duty in foreign ports,
the ruinous effect il so obvious, that tho warmest
advocate for The theory in question must shrink from
a universal application Of IL.
A nation leaving its fn cign trade, in all cases. 10
regulate itself. might soon find il regulated, by other
nations, into a subsc viency TO a foreign interest.
In The interval between the peace OF 1888 and the
establishment Of the present Constitution of the
United States, the want "f a general authority to
regulate trade is known 10 have had this conse-
quence. And havo not the prctensions and policy
~latterly exhibited by Great Britain given warning
Of like result from a remuneration Of all counter.
vailing regulations on the part Of the Unit ID States!
Were she permitted, by comforting on certain por-
tions of her domain the name of Colonies, 10 open
from these q trade for herself, to forcing coantriss,
and to exclude, At the Same time. . reciprocal trade
to such Colonies, by foreign countries, the use TO be
made Of The monopoly need not be traced. Its char
acter will be placed in q just relief, by surprising
that one Of the Colonial Islands, instead nf It's pres
ent distance, happened TO BIO in the vicinity Of
Great Britain; or that one Of the Islands in that vi
cinity should receive the name and be regarded in
the light Of a Colony, with the peculiar privileges
claimed for Colonies. Is it not manifest, that, IN
this case, the favored Island might be made tho sole
medium Of The commercial intercourse with foreign
nations. and the parent country thence enjoy ever,
essential advantage, as to The terms Of 1t, which
would flow from al unreciprocaI trade from her
other ports, with other nations!
Fortunately, the British claims, however specious-
ly colored or adroitly managed, were ~rcpelcd at the
commencement Of our commercial career, as an In
dependent People, and at successive epochs under
the existing Constitution, both in legislative discus
sions and in diplomatic negotiations. The claims
wore repealed on the solid ground that The Colonial
trade, as a rigEtfai monopoly, WIS limited to the in
tercourse between the parent country and. its coo.
MES, and between the one colony and another the
whole being, strictly, in tho nature Of n coasting
trade from one to another port oftho same nation a
trade with which no other nation has a right to in
terfere. 1t follows, &C necessity, that the parent
country, whenever it opens a colonial port for a d.
rect trade to a foreign country, departs itself, from
the principle Of colonial monopoly, and entities the
f,raion country IN tha aama recinFucItv. in every rE-
spcct as in its Intercourse with any other ports oi
the nation.
This Is common sense and common right. I. 10
still more, ilmore could be required. 1t IS in Goa.
formity with the established usage Of all nations,
other than Great Briiain, which have colon,es.-
Some of those nations arc known to adhere to the
monopoly Of their colonial trade, with all the rigor
and constancy which circumstances permit. Bat II
is also known, that, whenever, ani from whatever
cause, it has been found necessary or e~xpcdient TO
open their colonial ports 10 IA foroig IN trade, the rule
ofreciprocity ia favor Of the foreign party was not
refused, nor, is beloved, a right 10 refuse it pre-
tended.
1t cannot be said ths, the reciprocity was dicta-
ted by u deficiency Of The commercial marine.-
France, al least, could rot be, in every instance: go
vcrncd by that consideration--and Holland, still
less to say nothing ofthe navigating States OF Swe
den and Denmark, which have rarely, II ever, cnior-
ced u colonial monopoly. The remark is, indeed,
obvious, that the shipping liberated from the usual
conveyance Of supplies from The parent country 10
the colonies might be employed IN the new channels
opened tor them, IN supplies from abroad.
Reciprocity, or an equivalent Tor II, is the only
rule Of Intercourse among ind pendent communities;
and no nation ought to admit a doctrine or adop, an
invariable policy, which would preclude the coun
teracting measures necessary to enforce the rule.
2. The Theory supposcs, moreover, a perpetual
peace; a supposition, il Is to be feared, not less CHM
erical than a universal Fl ccdom Of commerce..
The effect Ut war among the commercial and man.
ufacturins nations of tho world, IN raising the wages
OF labor, and the cost Of its produces; with 4 like et-
feet on the charges Of freight and insurance, need
neither ~proofnor explanation. la order 10 deter
mine, therefore, a question Of econon =, betwesn
depending Oh foreign supplies, and encouraging do
nestle substitutes, II Is necessary to compare The
probable periods OF war with the probable periods y!
peace; anu the cost Of the domestic encourasemsni
in times Of peace, with the cost added I" foreign
articles IN times vi war.
During tho last century, the periods OF war and
peace have been nearly equal. Tho eject %! a state
Of war in raising thc price Of imported articles, ean-
not be estimated with axactness. Ii Is certain, how
ever, thai the increased price of particular articles
may make il cheaper to manufacture them at home.
Taking, for the sake Of ILLUSTRATION, an equality in
the two periods, aud the cost Ut an Imported yard Oi
cloth N time OF war to DO nine and u halt dollars,
and in time vi peace 10 be seven dollars, whilst The
same could at all times bo manufactured at home Tor
eight dollars, IL Is evident that a !arih Of ons dollar
aud a quarter on the imported yard would protect
the home manufacture ~ tine oi peace, aud ayoii a
tax oioae dollar and a hail imposed W 4 state o!
war.
IL cannot DO said that tho manufactures which
could not support themselves asains, foreign cont
petition in periods of peace, would spring up oil
themselves at the re Of war prices. IL must
be obvious to every oae, VI, 1t, apart from The dilh-
Guilty of great AMI sudden changes OF employincnt, no
prudent capitalists would ongase ia expensive es'
adjustments oiahy sort, at tho c'nmsncea'ent ora
-. .v.t., /. ta4 al haH-