Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-04-20

! from the same treasury statement go jus
adverteG 10, during eleven years, from le2l
10 1891 and exclusive of the fourth quarter
OF the last year, fall short of the amount O
imports 10y upwards of forty six millions o.
dollars, and the total amount, when the re
turns of that quarter are received, will en-
coed fifty millions of dollars Ii is surpris
ing how we have been able 10 sustain, for Sc
long time, trade so very unequal. We
must have been absolutely ruined by il, il
| the unfavorable balance had not been neu-
tralized by more profitable commerce will
other parts OF the world or all nations G.
Britain has the least cause TO complain OF
the trade between the two countries. Our
| imports from that single Power are nearly
! one third OF the entire amount of our impor-
lations from all foreign countries together.
| Great Britain constantly acts on the maxim
OF buying only what she wants and cannot
produce, and selling 10 foreign nations the
utmost amount she can. In conformity
with this maxim she excludes articles of
prime necessity produced by us-equally if
not more necessary than any of her indus
try which we tax, although the admission of
those articles would increase our ability TO
purchase from her, according 10 the argu-
ment of gentlemen.
live purchased stilless from Great Britain
Than we do,and our conditions were revers-
ed, SO that the value of her imports from
this country exceeded that other exports 10
! 1t, she would only then he compelled 10 do
what we have so long done, and what South
Carolina does, in her trade with X entucky,
make up for the unlavorable balance by
trade with other places and countries How
does she now dispose of the one hundred and
sixty millions of dollars worth of cotton fab
RIGS, which she annually sells? OF that
amount the United States do not purchase
five per cent. What becomes of the other
ninety per cent. ? Is it not sold 10 9th
er Powers, and would not their markets re-
main If ours were totally shut? Would she
not continue, as she now finds it her inter
est, 10 purchase the raw material from us. 10
supply those markets? Would she he gull
tty OF the folly Of depriving herself of mar
kets To the amount ofupwards of $50 0OO,-
OUO, because we refused her a market for
some eight or ten millions?
But ifthere we're adiminution OF the Brit
ish demand for cotton equal TO the loss OF a
maket for the few British fabrics which are
within the scope OF our protective policy the
question would still remain, whether the
cotton planter is not amply idemnifed by
the creation OF additional demand elsewhere:
With respect 10 the cotton grower it is the
fatality of the demand. and not lis dstribu-
ton, which affects his interests If any
SISTER! ofpolicy will augment The aggregate
OF the demand, that system is favorable 10
his interests, although its tendency may he
TO vary the theatre OF the demand. Ii could
not, for example, be injurious 10 him, if in
stead OF Great Britain continuing TO receive
the entire quantity Of cotton which she now
does, two or three hundred thousand bales of
1T were taken 10 the other side of the chan
mel, and increased, 10 that extent the French
demand. ltwOuld be better for him, be-
cause it is always better 10 have several
markets than one. Now, if, instead oftrans-
fer to the opposite side of the channel, of
the two three hundred thousand bales they
are transported TO the Northern States, can
that he injurious 10 the cotton grower? Is it
not better for him? Is il not better 10 have
market at home, unaffected by war or other
foreign causes, for that amount of his sta
pie?
If the establishment of American manu-
features, therefore, had the sole effect ofcre-
ating new, and an American, demand for
cotton, exactly TO the same extent in which
ii leSsened the British demand there would he
nOlust cause OF complaint against the tariff
The gain in one place would precisely equal
the loss in the other. But the true state of
the matter is much more favorable TO the cot
ton grower. 1t is calculated that the cotton
manufactures Of the United States absorb
at least 200,0 900 bales OF cotton annually =
believe il 10 be more The two ports of
Boston and Providence alone, received, dur
ing the last year, near 10000 bales The
amount is annually increasing The raw
material Ofthat two hundred thousand bales
is worth six millions, and there is an addi-
tional value conferred by the manufacturer,
OF eighteen millions ii being generally CAL
culated that, in such cotton fabrics as we are
in The habit Of making, the manufacture
constitutes three fourihs of the value Of the
article. Ifthereiore, these twenty -lourmill-
IONS worth ofcolton fabrics were not made in
the United States, but were manufactured
IN Great Britain, in order TO obtain them we
should have to add 10 the already enormous
dlsproporiion between the amount Of our
imports and exports, in the trade with Great
Britain, The further sum Of twenty -four
millions, or, deducting the price Of the raw
material, eighteen millions And will gen.
tlemen tell me how il would he possible for
this country TO sustain such ruinous trade2
From all that portion ofthe United States
lying north and east OF Janes river, and
west OF the mountains, Great Britain re-
ceiyes comparatively nothing. How would
II be possible for the inhabitants ofthat larg-
est portion Of our territory, TO supply them
selves with cotton fabrics, if tbey we're
brought from England exClusvelyi They
could not do IT. But for the existence OF the
American manufacture, they would he com
PEELED greatly 10 Curtail their supplies. il
not absolutely 10 suffer in their comforts
BY lis existence at home, the circle oftbose
OK 81. i.