, 1842-06-18

every COLLAR III CASH, VI us e4ui'dieii''
And the expense of bringing $4,000
worth of silk to orr market, would not
probably be more than that of shipping
one hogshead of tobacco TO England.
This the affirmative said was recipro-
cal free trade with a vengeance.
And why, inquired the affirmative
are we to submit to such unequal terms
of trade-conditions alike unjust and i'm
polite; as much to our national dishonor
as against our most vital interest. ODE
cause" say IL opponents, cit is TO our
interest to buy where we can buy cheap
est"
They seem 10 forget that the cheapness
of an article is to be estimated by the
amount of labour required to obtain it,
rather than the number Of dollars and
cents it costs. They forget that the I'M
reciprocated free trade that has long ex-
listed, excludes a vast proportion of the
products of our industry from foreign
markets, whilst the enormous duties on
those staples which will bear transport
~tation, and the duty yields the exporter
but a meager profit. And they do not
stop to inform us when or how the two
hundred and fifty millions we now owe,
mainly for European goods, which We
could quite as well have made at home,
under a system of protection or recipro-
cal trade. or have done without, is to be
paid, or how we are to pay the foreign
debts which will hereafter accrue, in the
event of things remaining as they are
restriction on the ore side and compare
tive free trade on the other. The prin-
ciple here involved was illustrated by
the similitude Of two mechanics. The
halter tells the shoemaker that he must
have two dollars more for his hat than it
was worth, for the privilege of trading
with him. The shoemaker replies that
self respect as well as the duty he owes
to his family, will compel him in return,
to tax him two dollars extra on his boots.
The halter refuses TO buy the boots on
such terms. Well, then, says the indig-
nant shomakcn, l will not buy yonr hats;
| can DO quite as well without your hats
as YOU can without my boots.
The affirmative commended that the
idea Of a thing being cheaper because it
was bought for a less number of dollars
was entirely fallacious, and a few argu-
ments were more likely TO mislead. Err
pcrience, not speculative reasoning, had
demonstrated that it was infinitely easier
for American farmers in those parts OF
country in which manufactures exist, to
purchase their woollen and Gotten goods,
hard ware, &c., at American prices, than
for farmers beyond the reach ofthe mar
ket which these establishments afford, 10
purchase English goods at half the price
and pay invariably in specie, as u i'm
porters are now compelled to do.
Was it not plain that if our govern
ment would so regulate our trade with
Europe as TO encourage great numbers
of our citizens to engage in mechanical
and manufacturing operations, thus be-
coming instead of produces Of
bread stuffs, the price of produce would
rise, and the farmer could depend on a
permanent and invariable market. BY
such a policy too, the workmen ofLeeds,
Birmingham, and Manchester, would be
lured to Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and Saint
Louis, where it would be much easier
for us to exchange our bread and meal
for their fabricks, cloths, axes, &C., than
to send them from three to five thousand
miles, paying heavy duties, commissions,
freights, &c., even if England would re-
ceive our produce at a reasonable, or re-
ciprocal duty. Was itnot plain that such
a policy would enable the farmer to buy
a given amount of goods with less hbou'
or less produce than under the present
system; and if so, it is equally clear that
the ~cheapness of ar. article is not to be
estimated by the number of dollars ii
costs SO much as by the number Of bush
els of wheat or pounds of tobacco.
But it was denied by the affirmative
that duties on imports as a general rule,
raised the price. The double competi-
ton between the American manufactur.
ers themselves and between all of them
as a BODY, and the European, almost in