The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-05-26

amount greater than S299 900 OOO before the admis
| sion can avail them in the argument. But ii Is sup
posed that trade with Great Br tain has, since tn
Compromise act, been particularly dsadv outrageous U
US In this respect. We happen to have before us
| comp lete table of exports and imports 70 am
! from the British dominions, from the year 1911 .
1910, both inclusive, being period OF ~ years th
first IL years embrace the period OF the High arm
policy and the last years of comparative free trade
1t appears from this table that from 1921 to 1882 IN
elusive the IL tariff years. the whole OF our exports
to the British domnions amount IN value TO SooS'-
| l469l3 and the whole OF our imports 10 S4So'oSo'-
4o9 showing that during the II tariff years we lui-
ported of British products in value about S42,OOO,-
| 900 more than exported of our own products to
| the British domnions. 1t also appears that from
1888 to 1910, inclusive, the years OF comparative
free trade the whole OF our exports to the British
domnions amount in value to S473, 223,S and the
whole of our imports to S459, 6O9 1885, showing that,
during the years of comparative free trade, ex-
ported to the British dominions, of own products,
in value about Sl3 900 more than we imported OF
British products. If the comparison is confined to
the years of the highest tariffs from 1924 to 1888,
the result will be similar--and it is nearly the same
if confined to Great Britain and Ireland Alone apart
from her colonies 1t seems then that in reference
to Great Britain at least high tariff makes our i'm
ports greater than exports thus turning the trade
and exchanges against this country-whllst free
trade makes our exports greater than our imports,
thus turning the trade and exchanges in favor OF this
country. Experience here again confirms what reason
teaches. But, after all, the material fact in this
discussion Isl to ascertain the comparative i'm
port and export of the precious metals during
these periods-for upon the result of this COM
parison the whole argument OF our opponents
must stand or fall. We are informed, by the re-
port of the Secretary of the Treasury, that, from
the year 1921 to 1882, inclusive, the same tariff
period, The whole amount of specie exported from the
United States sS4 4S3 Ala and the whole amount
imported during the period was IS ,35o,O94,
showing loss the United States in IL Tariff years
Of about S3 900 0OO-whist in the remaining years
the period of flee trade from 1888 to 1884, for this
Report includes the year lS4l the whole amount of
specie exported from the ned States was p5O, lO6,
$685. and the whole amount imported during the same
period 1893, l43, 4l6 showing gain to the United
States in years Of free trade, Of about $40 600 OO0
No doubt that this great in the imports OF spe-
Gle above the exports during the last years. Is In
some measure to be attributed to the sale of State
stocks in the foreign market-but 1t is believed that,
to very great extent is attributable TO the increase
Of the exports of domestic products during the
same time. 1t is, OF any event, obvious that high
Tariff neither brings keeps specie in the country;
for during the Tariff years we certainly lost more
| than $3 600. And now what becomes of this
| new argument of the Federasts in favor of Pro-
tectve Tariff 1t rested upon the assumption that
high Tariff brought the precious metals into the U nj
ted States, at least kept them here. The fact is:
that it sends them away. We respectfully ask for
this fact the attention of those particularly who have
suffered themselves to be msled by this new argument
without sufficient examination Of its truth. They
must be satisfied think that there is nothing in
this new Federal dogma of high Protective Tariff
regulating the currency. So far as it can have any
influence at all upon the currency must have an in
furious one.
We warn you, fellow citizens, against being i'm
posed on by any seemingly new arguments, either in
favor Of National Bank Protective Tariff. Those
measures have been thoroughly examined and dis
cussed by at least wise and patriotic this
generation show. They have been tried by The
Union and condemned. There is nothing new to be
said in their favor They the same old Federal mea
sures and must rest upon the old Federal prin
cples and reasons They have been and still re-
commended to opponents chiefly because they ex-
tend the power of the General Government at the
pense of all the limitations IN your Constitution.
They unite with that Government the great moneyed
interests of the country They make a large class of
wealthy capitalists dependent for their dividends upon
that Government alone and thus buy their support
for 1t, under all circumstances right wrong. If
adopted they will inevitably it into consoli
dated Governme resting upon moneyed aristocracy
But we you still more earnestly against high
Protective Tariff; for whilst it thus equally tends to
strengthen the General Government it weakens the
States by arrayng them against each other in their
contests for their differing sectional interests These
contests in 1882, brought your happy Union TO the
very brink of dissolution. If this be per-
severed in it will inevitably meet similar resistance
attended with still greater danger to your peace and
Liberties. Are you prepared to exchange your
federacy for despotism or dissolution Can the warm
est advocates of Protective Tariff pretend that it
will afford you any equivalent for either Of these evils
no matter in which it may result n These are the
questions you have in reality to consider; and
not doubt how you will decide them.
Another Centinel on the Watch Tolrer.
|