, 1842-06-25

more calculated TO deceive the unsuspcct-
ing mind, than the mode in which this
subject is presented. At the first blush
one would suppose that the primary con-
sidcration of its advocates was to bring
the contries with which we trade, TO
terms of reciprocity, by strong, elective
retaliatory duties, on their importations.
This was not their object, or their wish.
A protective tariff was the real object, III
spite of all their ]prctensions TO the con-
trary. The great desideratum was, to
lay a tariff of duties, not high enough TO
cocrce other nations into our measures,
but, Just high enough TO defeat this, their
ostensiJk object, and at the same time to
protect Northern and Eastern NTanufac-
tories, at the expense of the consumers
of the South and West. To prove that
this was their real object in disguise,
Mr.. B. advcrted to the fact that the
Home Lcagucrs were necessarily clam
oring at the high duty which England
imposes upon our bread stuifs, and giving
this as a reason why we should strike
back upon her productions by rctaliatory
duties. What would be the effect of ad-
hitting our wheat, corn, bacon, &c, free
of duty, into the ports Of European ma
tons? 1t would diminish the expenses
of living at least 80 per cent. TO the op-
c~rativc, and the effect necessarily would
be a corresponding reduction in the
price of tie productions of his labour,
which, coming into competition with our
manufactures, would, TO 4 great extent,
drive them out of the market, at home
and abroad. Reciprocity Of trade is not
hen the object of this new move of the
Home Lcagucrs. The appeal TO our
feelings of justice, and OH horror for
the overbcaring injustice of England and
other nations, is a mere ~makcTeight,
thrown into the protective tariff scalc-a
bait for gudeons-a humbug-a fraud,
and q cheat.
Free trade with all nations is what we
wanted. and Mr.. b. would have 10 OBJ
lection to see an embargo laid upon the
entire trade of all countries that iinpos-
ed onerous duties upon our commerce.
This the advocates Of protection did not
desire by any means, for in the clsd it
would wholly defeat their scheme Of pro-
lection.
This subject is narrowed down TO the
simple question of the policy of a Free
Protective Tariff. Even admitting that
it is a question Of retaliation, or counter
vailing duties, the principle involved is
The same, though the motive may be diff
it1cnt. England imposes a high duty on
Il wheat and corn, thereby injuring
her subjects as wei as chr citizens. 1t
makes them pay higher 10: what they
eat, makes our labour less profitable, AM
prevents us from buying as much from
her as we otherwise would. The advo-
Gates of reciprocity now desired US TO
say TO England, "You have done great
injury TO yourself as well as TO US, and
TO mend the matter, we will in return,
do as great an injury to ourselves as well
as to you. 1t must be evident that this
viii he the effect.
Suppose that France lays a duty of5O
per cent. on our corn. The effect ofthis
is, to make the French pay
one half more than he would pay if it
were duty free. If, without duty, it sold
for 10 francs a barrel, with the duty it
would sell fer l5-and would be the
same if the French Government were to
take from the pockets Of the OF
the article, 5 francs for every barrel Of
corn consumed. Such would be some OF
the effects upon the French people. AS
to US, it would diminish our wealth aris-
ing from the production of corn, by one
half, and make us less able TO crafty our
desires, by purchases from other coun-
tries, and particularly from France,
Thus stands the case when we impose q
similar duty upon her cutlery, or cotton
fabrics. With her duty of so per cent
on our corn, we could buy 10 yards OF
cotton goods with a barrel of corn-un-
der the mere duty of50 per cent it takes
a barrel and a half of corn to buy the
same quantity of cotton cloth, or cutlery
from our manufacturers. This view o
Al =: Ior ,n1or H. -.x