New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-07-13
soolitieal Distorp.- No. XVI.

NoT;p1ch, ~ T.;
3ooltical Distorp-No. XVI.
Prepared Tor The Tribune By EpwIS WILLIAMS
air jefferson IN Retremenhis motive. therefor d''er
en,ly commandments Of MARSHALL, Sullivan and
Tucker thefcon-Mr. Siadison's Resolutions o" I''"'
rncrcaI Observation-Disclosures thereon
[Coacuded.l
There is another exception to the advantages
Of free trade: where the situation OF country
Is such with respect to another that by duties on
the commodities of that otherlit shall not only
inyigorate it's own means Of rivaship, but draw
from that other the hands employed in the produc-
lion of those commodities When such an effect
can be produced, it is so much clear gain, and
is consistent with the general theory OF national
rights.
The effect of leaving commerce to regulate
itself, is to submit 1t TO the regulation OF other
nations IF the United States hada commercial
intercourse with one nation only, and should per-
NIT free trade, while that nation proceeded on
a monopolizng system, would not the carrying
trade be transferred to that nation, and with IT
the maritime strength it confcrs be hcaped upon
a rival? Then in the same proportion TO the ircc
dom granted to the vessels of other nations IN
the United States, and to the burdens other ma
lions impose on American vessels. will be the
transfer of those maritime resources.
The subject was not novel. 1t was as old as
the nation. 1t had been discussed from their po-
litical birth, and had exercised the thoughts and
attention of rejecting persons ever SINCE The
various Intellectual attempts whchh had been made
BY the State Legislatures, for the establishment
of system to rctaliatc the restrictions on Amer
.can trade, were reviewed, and 1t was declared
that out of this experience arose those measures
which terminated III the cXiscing Constitution,
with view to permanent regulations, and tho
yindication Of commercial rights.
The propositions before the committee of the
whole should be examined as they concern navl-
ration, manufactures, and the Just principles OF
discrimination that ought TO prevail IN Their poll
cy to nations having treaties with them.
With respect TO navigation, it was conceded
that they We're not placed upon the same footing
hy the two nations with whom they had the
greatest commercial intercourse. British vessels
could bring the produce of all countries INTO any
part OF the United States while American yes
sels could carry TO the ports of Britain only their
own commodities, and those only to a part OF her
ilominons. From her ports in the West Indies,
Americans were entirely excluded. The effect
Of the British Navigation Act was sufficiently
shown by a comparison of American and British
tonnage employed in mutual trade: the former
IL, 1890 amounted to only to $4,000 tons, and the
latter to 2i0, 900 tons, while with other foreign
nations the advantages Were greatly IN our favor
If America should secure TO herself the tranSpor.
ration of her own commodities, leaving 10 Other
nations the transportation Of theirs, 1t would IN
crease our maritime strength by greatly aug
nenting the proportion of orr shipping and sal
!ors.
In relation TO manufactures, the regulations
existing between the United States and Great
Britain were not more equal Out of the whole
amount Of manufactures imported mic tins coun
try in the year 1880, then stated at sSl5,29o
600 in round numbers, Great Britain furnished
Sl3960, 900. The balance of trade at the same
epoch was greatly in favor OF the United States
with every other nation, and greatly against them
with Great Britain. Other nations viewed 4
balance Of trade against them as q real evil; anc
c. Britain in particular was careful TO prevent it
That the commercial regulations Of Great
Britain were as favorable to the United States a.
to other nations ought not to satisfy America
II other nations were willing 10 bear lmpostlons
or were unable to rctalac, their examples were
not worthy Of imitation. America was IN a con
slition to insist and ought TO insist, on perlcc
commercial equality.
The disadvantage OF depending upon single
nation for articles OF necessary consumption. wa
strongly pressed. On the advantages of Amer
lea in u contest with q popplous and manufacture
ing country, if Great Britain should rctaliatc
The friends of the resolutions dweli with earnest
ness America produced all the neccssareS o
life within herself, and could dispense with tht
articles received from others But Great Britain
not producing them IN sulficent abundance, was
dependent on the United States for the supply OF
her most essential wants. Again, the manuiac-
,nrer of that country WAS dependent on this for q
his bread.
The national character of America was said to
depend on the passage Of the resolutions. Their
rejection would make very uniavorablc impress
sion abroad, and would ryet on our commerce
those fctters which had produced such numerous
and injurious consequences 10 the country.
Such according to Judge MarShall,) were
some of the arguments IN the House of Repre-
sentatiyes in support Of Mr.. Madson's mcmora-
bic resolutions. They an essential part OF
political history, as showing the views OF the lead
eTs of the Democratic party of that day, on an
important branch of national policy. The prln-
cipal speakers on that side were from Virginia,
and large majority Of those who sustained Their
views were from, Southern States
The Fedcraiists, in opposing the resolutions,
SAID, that If the United States had sustained po-
htica wrong from Great Britain, they should
feel as keenly as any persons for the Frustrated
honor of their country but this was not the mode
of redrcssing them. When that subject should
bnoorb} hsforo Cop,ras,