New-York tribune., 1841-12-03
Thr Home Lengme.

Netiops in their commercial intercourse with the
United States has at length attracted the attention
OF the leading Loco.Foco journals And with
what tempest of wrath do they pounce upon it
Fools, madrnen, driyelers, knaves, and cheats are
among the courteous epithets showered spon Us
By the Washington Globe, the Evening Post, the
Journal Of Commerce, &c. &c. The Albany
Argus keeps dark as yet, but is evidently with
held rather by fear Of consequences than lack
of disposition. The Post and Journal Of Com
merce arc wrathfully astonishcd that the ghost
of the dead American System, or Protective
Tariff, which they are sure they have once
killed, has risen to scar their eyebas, and viii
not down at their bidding Let them be sure
that the hard names and contenptuous epithe;s
thew now bcstow upon it will rot lny the per
tmbed spirit.
The Democratic Review-that ready asserteI
Of all poradoxes and champion of all Po-
lilical delusion-is out upon US in plaus ble and
wcll-srit,cn paper this month. Although mis-
taken in its reasoning, aud somewhat abusive
well as supercous in its treatment of The Home
League, it deserves re.pcct for graphing with the
subject nanfully, and not cyading the force Of tn.
opposing argument by an assumption OF fai:e
premises. The Review frankly takes tho broad
ground that this country ongh to receire tie
products Of other nations free Of saty, although
those nations at tie time prohiJn utterly
tie purchase or use cf american products By
their Peopls The Home League asserts tie
direct contrary OF this: the issue is fairly joined
Now, though the Review fairly states the prem s
its argument thereon strangely overooks entreyti
object and the effect Of retalia,iEg the mposts OF
foreign nations. These are, to Obtain ultimately
a. fair trade wjtk those nations on terms mutua(iy
advantageous. Let us Try to make the plain truth
which opponents overlook still palmer by an
illustration Suppose Great Britain were to-mor-
row to prohibit the entry of American vessels into
any of the ports of her vast dominions: What
would our opponents have US do Shall we fold
our hands and meekly submit to it 20 dis
pensation of Providence Would they have
continue to welcome British vessels to our ports
on the same terms with our own! If they cling
to their principles they must inevitably; but the
them in an instant Nincty-nine of every hundred
would exclain in Il breath, " Great Britain has
right to exclude vessels and may do il |
"peaceably; but we have an equal right to ex-
q" clude hers-and sclfprcservation demands It's
exercise. Henceiorth until her restriction is re-
moved no British vessel shall enter our ports.
This is the unprompted impulse of every manly
hcart--of every rational mind. No independent
and unteIrifed nation acted otherwise since
the foundation of the world-lcast Of all ours.
And vet this universal recoursc-so natural and
necessary US to be well nigh involuntary covers
the whole ground assumed BY the Home League
Now 1chy should u natien uniformly resort to this
retaliation Not merely because INJURY has
been iuHictcs which must be rcscnted-not be-
cause Great Britain has inflicted injury on
both nations, and VIC should therefore Proceed to
infct another as is preposterously asserted
by the Free Traders, (though such would doubt
less be the immediate effect Of the retaliation)-
but because nttS as tie only ,cay 20 dctedt such /
measure Of our rivai and Preeent recurrence
TO IL. If this country were tomorrow 10 adopt
fully the doc rinos of the FreeTr Traders and stand
pledged to abide by them the last, Great Britain
and France would in two years crush our navisa-
ton and transfer the carrying-trade with Europe
TO their own shipping by the simple enactment OF
Navigation Laws giving preference to their own
vessels. Our entire Marine would have been
srangled in its cradle and the expectation OF oui
vast annual products of Cotton, Tobacco, Grain,
&c. have been 10 this day confined TO European
vessel. had we no, in the infancy Of our Nation
established and to this day inlexbly insisted
stric, reciprocity in regard to Navigation All the
grea; maritime powers have Navigation Acts
(modeled on tho English) giving preference to
goods imported in their own vessels but we a.
once countcrvaied this by enacting similar law
and providing that ii should only take effect on the
vessels Of those nations which gave preference
10 their own vessels. The result is that Great
Britain and most nations admit our vessels on the
same terms with their own by agreement; and
thus tie adoption and maintenance IN respect TO
Navigation Of the principles Of tie Home
League has led TO tte abolition of all discri,ai-
nation ,rhaterer and perfect reciprocity OF genu
inc Free-Trade So would it be with other inter
es.s, if we had but the wisdom and the nerve TO
ask Justice of foreign nations. and be satisfied with
nothing loss.
Here is the whole question in nutshell Dare
the Frce-rraders meet nl Will they maintain
that we ought to admit the vessels of other nations