Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-04-25

behalf OF the ships OF all nations which did not
discriminate against our own. This Immediately
brought Britain to terms. She consented to ad-
mt American vessels 10 her ports on the same
terms with her own, upon our doing the same,
and this arrangement remains still in effect. But
tor this timely and efficient countervailing OF the
British Navigation Act American Commerce in
our own vessels would be as that of Holland now
is-as that OF Venice has long BEEN Protection
has secured to us genuine Freedom and Reel
procity, where one.sided Free Trade would have
soon stripped us Of any Trade at all.
For many years no man has dreamed Of or ask
cd for The repeal of our countervaiing or protec-
tive Navigation Act, while thousands ferceIy
clamor against all other Protecting mposls On
what principle is this distinction made? Are our
Free Trade importers and ship.own unwilling
\ to submit their own business to the policy they
would impose on the internal industry OF the coun-
lry? Do they cling TO Protection for their own
interests, yet deny it to those Of all other classes
! These nre questions which should no longer
main unanswered.
But the principle Of Protection is impregnably
entrenched in other conside rations than that OF
defence against positive foreign aggression. We
maintain that there is obvious policy, wise econo
my, and irue far seeing craftsmanship in that view
OF Protection which regards II in itself, and with.
out respect to the course of other nations as a
means of fostering into heahful vigor new bran
ches of industry and increasing the general pro-
,luct OF the country We dsclaim all aggressive
iProtection-n legislation or policy whose aim
shall be to enable American producers to under
sell those OF other nations abroad We demand
simply that the toiling masses of our own goodly
and may he enabled to sit in peace beneath their
t0wn vine and fig tree, secure in their several en-
poyments, and finding just reward and stimulus
tor their industry in ministering to each others
wants and enjoyments TO mutual advantage. We
seek TO build up policy like that OF Great Brit
ain, to make our own Country the Ralto OF Ma
tons, the maker, and refiner, aud trafficker and
carrier for all other Countries. We do not want
other Nations constrained by policy or craft to
Jbring their bread to be baked in ovens, any
more than TO carry our loaves to theirs. We ask
no policy like Britans which shall bring hither
the gold and gems of Nil climes and kndreds, and
Epile them up on our shores. 1t is because we are
kntterly hostile TO that grasping selfshness which
t'eeks TO secure and perpetuate in its own hands
monopoly Of the Trade and Manufactures of the
World, that we combine to resist it, and counsel
our countrymen to see that it be seadiaslly coun-
| leracied, so far as il affects ourselves. Those,
| therefore, who argue against defensive Protection
from the effects of British policy in the depression
OF British labor, wholly mistake the nature and
essence of the controversy. That depression is Il
part OF our case-it is an impressive, urgent rea-
son why the Colossus of British monopoly should
he attacked and overthrow, injurious to the
great laborlng mass even of Britons as well as
others. Ii is for this reason that, while the
lle burthen by her own working people, the coun.
tervailing acts of Germany and the other Nations
Of Continental Europe recognized by their
People essential 10 their individual welfare no
less to National Independence anG Prosperity.
We cannot therefore but regard the assertion
that proper Protective Duties will not promote
the interests ofhe Laboring Glasses here because
what are called Protective duties have an unfavor-
able effect in England, addressed to the igno-
rance rather than the understanding of those
whom it is employed to influence There is no.
Thing like analogy in The cases-lhe seeming re-
semblance is one OF sound, not of sense. Those
who employ it are careful 10 keep it as far from
the light rs possible.
Let us endeavor, by an Illustration TO place this
important truth in a yet clearer light, and esab-
lish at the same time the wisdom and necessity of
genuine Protection. We will take the case of
Great Britain, country of boundless wealth, ex
iperience and skill in mechanical processes and
irts great and established facilities for all branch
rs OF manufactures, and abundance OF cheap la
hor on the other hand We will set own States
iof Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois States as yet
mainly agricultural, irnperfectly subdued and til
led, with labor scarce and in demand, and a soil
Yielding abundany all the fruits of the earth. II
Britain were wise enough to take freely of these
States their grain in exchange for her cloths and
wares, it would seem at first blush their manifest
interest TO procure of her their supplies of Man l.
iufactures. beyond doubt they might thus obtain
their goods tor fewer dollars than by encouraging
their production on their own soil. But expert
fence abundanty demonstrates that, in order TO
buy their cloths of England at the cheaper money
prices at which they, being of rifing bulk, could
undoubtedly be transported and sold, our Western
farmers must sell their grain Mt such prices as
would admit of its transportation to England and
sae there in competition with the grain of all 9TH
er countries. Estimating the average price of
Wheat throughout the world at one dollar bush
oil, il could hardly, under a system of Free Trade,
command more than dollar and quarter in
England and in view OF the close proximity Of
he great grain growing regions Of Germany and
POLAND, with their cheap labor, we may wei doubt
I hat il would he so high. The effect Of absolute
Free Trade would therefore be to supply the far
mers of the West with British cloths at prices lit
lie above those of Leeds and Birmingham but to
reduce the value of their own products far below
that of the corresponding products Of Germany
and Poland, by reason OF the FAR greater extent of
of the devious, varied, and for months of each
year interrupted transportation to England. Al
loving that the average price of Wheat IN Eng
nnd would he dollar and quarter, its average
price throughout the West could not certainly ex-
coed fifty cents, and would often fall below lwen-
~ five. Admitting, therefore that the money cost
of producing the Cloth on their own soil would
for time be twenty five per cent more, the sim
pls question to be decided by the farmers of the
West is, whether they will pay five dollars yard
for Cloth in Wheat at a dollar bushel, or buy
it at four dollars yard and pay in Wheat At ihir-
~ cents buslie. The answer could not long de-
tain any one who had mastered the simple rules oil
Arithmetic.
Or, We may state the question in another form
which Is cheaper-to send Flour from Peoria and
Chicago to Leeds and Sheffield for cloth, paying
four barrels out of six for transporIaion-or TO in
yite the cloth makers TO our own soil, and here
pay them four barrels instead of two for the CLOTH
and yer save two Of The six to the falmer who
raised the Grain aud buys The Cloth? 1t is most
manifest to your Committee that the policy which
keeps The cloth. makers on one continent and the
grain growers in the heart of another, is one OF
fragrant improvidence and waste--a wanton throw.
ing away Of the enormous cost Of reciprocal trans
portation-reducing greatly the essential reward
Of labor on either hand and thus depressing the
condition OF the laborer. How shall this concltl-
sion be avoided?
Your Committee, therefore, do not advocate the
PrOIectiYe policy as adYaniap cons 10 oir OMn Poo