Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-03-22

were. discharged at the port of Philadel-
phia, 400, 1853 bushels of Indian corn,
col 1878 bushels of wheat, and iiO,557
bushels of rye and barley. There were
slaughtered in Boston, during the same
year, 1881, (the only northern city from
which l have obtained retuins) 33, ,922
beef cattle, Is, 400 stores, "a ,453 sheep,
& ,87l swine. tits confidently beliey-
ed that there is not less quantity oisouth-
ern flour consumed at the North than
100000 barrels-a greater amount, prob
ably, than is shipped to all the foreign
markets of the world together.
What would be the condition of the
farming country of the United States
of all that portion which lies north, east,
and west of James river, including
large part of North Carolina, if home
market did not exist for this immense a
mount of agricultural produce! Without
that market, where could it be sold! In
foreign markets.? lftheir restrictive laws
did not exist, their capacity would not en-
able them to purchase and consume this
vast addition to their present supplies,
which must be thrown in, or thrown a
way, but for the home market. But their
laws excluded us from their markets. l
shall content myself by calling the atten-
ton of the Senate to Great Britain only
The duties, in the ports of the United
Kingdom, on bread stuhs, are prohibito-
ry, except in times Of dearth. On rice,
the duty is fifteen shilings sterling per
hundred weight, being more than one
hundred per cent. On manufactured to-
bacco, it is nine shilings sterling per
pound, or about two thousand per cent.
On leaftObacco, three shillings per pound,
or one thousand two hundred per cent
On lumber and some other articles, they
are from four hundred to one thousand
five hundred per cent more than on SIM
liar articles imported from British colo
nics. In the British West Indies, the du-
ty on beef, pork, hams, and bacon, is l2
shllings sterling per hundred, more than
one hundred per cent. on the first cost Of
beef and pork in the Western States
And yet Great Britain is the power in
whose behalf we are called upon TO leg
islate so that ,Ve may enable her to pur-
chase our cotton! Great Britain, that
thinks only of herself in her own legisla-
ton! When have we experienced JUS
tice, much less favor, at her hands!-
When did she shape her Legislation in
reference to the interests of any foreign
Power' She is great, opulent, and
powerful nation; but naughty, arrogant,
and supercilious. Not more separated
from the rest of the world by the sea that
girts her island, than she is separated in
feeling, sympathy, or friendly considera-
ton of their welfare. Gentlemen, in
supposng it impracticable that we should
successfully compete with her in manu-
factures, do injustice to the skill and en-
terprise of their own country. Gallant,
as Great Britain undoubtedly is, we have
glorously contended with her, man to
man, gun to gun, ship to ship, fleet to feet,
and army to army. And have no doubt
we are destined to achieve equal success
in the more useful, if not nobler contest
for superiority in the arts of civil life.
l could extend and dwell on the long
list of farticles-the hemp, iron, lead, coal
and other items, for which demand is
created in the home market, by the ope-
ration of the American System; but l
should exhaust the patience of the Sen
ate. Where, where, should we find a
market for all these articles, if it did not
exist at home? What would be the con-
dition of the largest portion Of our Peo-
pie and of the territory, if this home mar
ket were annihilated9 How could they
be supplied with objects of prime neces-
sity? What would not be the certain &
inevitable decline in the price of all these
articles but for the home market? And
allow me, Mr.. President, to say, that, of
all the agricultural parts Of the United
States which are benefited by the ope-
ration of this system, none are equally so
with those which border the Chesapeake
Bay, the lower part of North Carolina,
Virginia, ,and the two shores of Maryland.
Their facilities Transportation and prox-
unity to the North gives them decided
advantages.
But, if all this reasoning were totally
fallacious-if the price of manufactured
articles were really higher, under the
American System, than without it IL should
still argue that high or low prices were
themselves relative-relative to the a
bility to pay them. 1t is in vain to tempt,
to tantalize us with the lower prices of
European fabrics than our own, if we
have nothing wherewith to purchase
them. If by the home exchanges, we
can be supplied with necessary, even if
they are dearer and worse, articles of
American production than the foreign, it
is better than not to be supplied at ALL
And how would the large portion of our
country which have described, be sup