Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-03-17

nor premiums. Commerce then regulates itself freely.
and asks nothing better" We shall presently SEQ how
their progress has been checked since they have de-
parted from this wise course.
While approaching the Americans with tho folly o.
their tariff, we do do not wish 10 conceal that the ex-
ample of England has. more than any thing else. in
duced Thorn to maintain il. For centuries the "mercan-
tile theory Of wealth" was firmly fixed in the minds OF
our statesmen; the history OF our commercial legisla.
ton presents a continued series Of laws (mado only TO
be broken, for il was impossible TO enforce them) hav-
ing for their object the prevention Of the importation OF
foreign goods. And OF late years, when wiser coun-
sells have ruled the empire, il cannot be denied that the
good effects " hich mighthave resulted from the change,
in the way of example to foreign nations, have in a
great me sure been neutralized, by the reasons which
our ministers have adduced for abandoning the prohi-
bihvc system, reasons which were never the strongest,
and sometimes even not tho true ones. They have
acted right, but reasoned wrong. No greater advan-
tage can DO given TO the enemies OF truth, than by
maintaining right principles OF erroneous grounds
This Is what has unfortunately been in England. MIR.
Huskisson, with free trade in his heart, had prohibi ion
perpetusily on his lips. He declared he took OIL the i'm
pottat'on duty OF 10 per cent. on cotton s DDS, because
their superior cheapncs, in Fogland was an eflectual
prohibiuon to their introduction without the aid oil this
nigh duty. Ono of his principal reasons again for re-
ducing the duty on woollen goods from 80 TO ID per CT,
and on elk goods from prohibition to 80 per cent, was,
that these low imposts were still high enough TO prevent
the foreigner coming into competition with the English
manufacturers; or, in other words, these measures were
to DO utterly inefficient, and TO leave us in tho same state
OF prohibition as before. In the words of Mr.. Senior,
"these measures are defended as useless, and opposed
W IL UcuH tHc COustdut pTdCuCc VI y
who oppose them to doclaim on the quantity of foreign
goods which they will introduce, that is, on their bene-
hcial tendency. Far too much use is also made OF the
argument deduced from smuggling. Mr.. Huskisson
constantly urg d, aud with perfect truth, "if you wont
allow the far trador 10 Introduce foreign goods, the
smuggier. will do it but he did not add. which he
ought to have done, with equal earnestness, /" if YOU
can shut out tho %smuggler, The result will be still more
disastrous than it is with him." Pressing as he did
wit, undue force on this argument, powerful as il, no
doubt is, no led his hearers to believe, that il we could
suppress the SNUG yler ,prohibitive laws would be highly
oenehcial; whereas, in truth, we should be infinitely
worse OIL without than with him; for this great evader Of
our taxes applies a salutary correction 10 tho evils of our
faulty commerce al legislature and as such deserve TO be
looked upon with peculiar veneration and esteem.
o~nhaPpily for the Americans, by Thu faulty reason
ing OF Mr.. Huskis on, their attention has been princi.
paiiy caught; and they have been wofully deceived by
IL, as the result has proved. If Mr.. Huskisson made
such a point OF not lowering the duties to that level,
which should readily admit foreign goods, why, asked
the Americans, inconsiderately enough we allow, but
with some degree of plausibiity, should not we raise
our duties to that height which should produce the
same effect as is intended in England! The speeches
OF our iree-trade minister supplied no answer, and their
Tariff il the result.
While we object to the species of arguments thst
preVahod In MIR. Huskissons speeches, we must not
forget that he was in a great measure forced into il bv
the p~rcJudices and interests he had 10 deal with. Firmly
convinced oil the sound policy of his measures, the un-
ceasing ciainor OF h s opponents was perpetually COM
peHing him so 10 arrange them that nearly the mini
mum OF effect might be produced. He consequently
struck balance between the free-tradcrs and the pro-
~ ''C idAAtI III CIdr tn1t M effect
OF MS measures would be to admit few, very few. To-
reign goods; TO the former, who naturally INQUIRED in
what then consisted their utility, he answered, they
would admit some, and that too large an imDortation
would cause great immediate distress. He had a diff.
cult part to perform, and the improvements he had at
neart could only be carried into effect by throwing
aust INTO the eyes OF those whose opposition would o.
therwise have overwhelmed him. His error Law in
Saying, too much, from necessity we admit, to please
~ plohIo'uohists; Tor his acts were all against them,
and In TACT, as far as they wont, were in complete ac-
coiudHce WIN The doc trincS OF Adam Smith. tIis the A
inerlcans will discover If they will condescend TO exa-
mine tho Wealth of Nations a little more close
~ lhey are perpetually accusing us of being incon-
sistent supporters of the free trade theory, while we i'm
pose duties as high as 20 10 80 per cent. on foreign ma
nuIactures.. We answer in the words of Adam Smith,
ue second case. in which il will generally be advan-
'ageous 10 lay some burden upon foreign for the cncour.
a5e'hom' oil domestic industry, IS, when SONS tax is
imposed at n mo upon the produce Of the la,ter."s-
VOW mis Is exactly the case with England. Several
OF our manufacturers are directly taxed, but il will he
SAID not to The extent of 90 or 80 per cent consequent.
Y, oh,y part oil the duty IL accounted for. Again, with
nc Same INDUSTRIOUS authority we say, " the case in
"hicn IL may sometimes be a matter of deliberation
now a orin what manner it is proper to restore the
lree importation OF foreign goods after it has been for
some ume interrupted, is, when particular manufac.
lures ny means of high duties or prohibitions upon all
ioreign goods which can come into competition with
mem, nave been so far extended as 10 employ a great
multitude oil hands. Humanity NAV in this case require
'nat the freedom Of trade should be restored onlv bv
$40" gradations and with a good deal of reserve and cir
cumspecuon" This again is the case in England, and
- 'cuSoi u VI untleS should mi In
me hrst instance be lowered to a less rate than 20 n r
81 per cent, considering that the old duties were 75 ner
cent, or prohibition. Now, neither of these eases an
pies TO Americas; they have not our burden of internal
'axauon' and they had not their tariff, consequently. in
vain can they assert the example Of England in rois-
ing me dulles even to this height; and we are SIR.
prised mat MIR. Cambreleng, in his excellent Renort n
congress on Commerce and Navigation, shouId saw IN ,
thirty per cent. duty " has been as,ertainei and se,,IeJ
IN Srea' Britain as the safest for the revenue. the hest
10 ~ "ulSc.urers, ana the most equitable rate for all
classes and interests " The only reasons gbv there
shou'n ne any duty at all, are contained in the above two
quotations from Adam Smith, both OF which are inannli.
cable TO America. II is true that importation dr,;ao
may DO made a source OF revenue, but in that case there
Ca" 70 nc uouot mat tho amount levied would be much
Srea'erE me duty IS lowered 80 per cent. After what
we have said, il is almost needless to state ,b,, MO na
as much opposed TO our corn laws s the Anerican. arc
lhey should learn, however, that their reproachos for
our Inconsistency on this score fall utterly pointless. "a
Nose u advocate freedom in other matters with one or
TWO exceptions advocate IL in this also. and y;ce rerso,
consequently, the imputed inconsistency does no, o.
list. WV" w
It's curious to read the reasons given bv fe Amer;-
can prohibitionists for imposing some of the add;tionaI
nuues contained in their last tariF. By their previous
~nm, my nau imposed duties sufficiently high, it was
supposed, 10 prevent tho importation of our woolen
goods, when their rice calculations were comnletelv n
SET ny tha' pubic measure OF Mr.. Huskisson which ~
duced the duty on foreign wool imported into FnoIand
from od TO III or I'D per pound, which of course gave
our inanuiaturers an unlookcd-ior advantage. This was
not 10 be borne an i%ndignty, IL was declared. was MI,
on the republic; could IL be endured. excI,imaJ H.
transatlantic wiseacres, that our revenue Iaws sLomiS
ne repealed by an act OF the British legislature, A 60
PIE ana obvious course was suggested by some. that re-
shouu aIso repeal their duties on foreign wool. and
thus place the home manufacturer on The s,ro 80 Siu
with the British but here another diGc,,t,. oo.Ins
ne woll-grower must have his DrofeehLo,5 a. Ill :.
the manufacturer, and would il not he a di.sraoo . -