New-York daily tribune., 1844-12-03

., to ine-sa,e cousump,on On the conte by increasing
the lnsnnacure pee where they are IN oce ,ney sse
snc nsp ,as from one and beiow enobs 10
the INJURY OF whole oI they sapos sG sed IN what
y epmnate cannot be foreeen but the fact appsa 70 ee
eay The INT n The nssefs .! 1ns an
may made TO flourish and SOUND culIenfy
es esd .aty Mas asi branch Of agriculture which furnishes
them with tbe eblood is sunk 70 the owet POM u '
preas.oD.
The vital assumption here imports that "the
price OF Gotten throughout the wo;ld IS reguie-
ted by the price in Liverpool" But we ASH
kou regulated Is i, regulated any o!herwise
than as the price in LiverPoolis regulated ny the
price elsewhcre2 Suppose g new demand ior
Cotton, to the extent OF Half a Million bales,
should spring up in Mexico or Brazll-ihe annual
product remaining the same-mustnot the Price
of Cotton zise in Liverpool, and every Wfiefe
else? Would not the adranes Of price be Just as
decided as If The Half Million bales uere sent TO
Liverpool and there manufactured for MeTrc0 Or
Brazil? TO our mind nothing can be clearer
than the answer to this proposition. Aud II this
increased demand sheuld spfing up u"der FRO.
tsctiye or even Prohibitory laws-if Menco
should have created it by utterly excluding brl-
,;sb Manu(actures-thc benefit to the Cotton
grower would be the same II is not Dhere the
Cotton goes, but ho,o much, that materially al
fects the price. If England manufactured the
Cotton for the whole world, the price of the raw
staple would certainly be TO higher-we are con-
6dent it would be lower. In that case, the capl-
ta,is.a and Manufacturers Of England could more
easily and certainly by combination regulate and
repress the price of Cotton than they now can.
We are sure that the annual consumption OF Hall
a Million bales in this country keeps the average
price of Cotton higher than if this additional
qusntity were thrown on the British market and
our Cotton goods wholly imported thence. IL
any one doubts, let him ask himself whether he
prefers that for the staple he sells there should be
one buyer or ffty-the quantity required beng
in either case the same.
Gov. Hammond's conclusion rests entirely on
his assumption that Protection invariably IN
crcases the price OF the protected article Ihs
has been million times disprsved, and never
once attempted TO be sustained. 1t IS the very
opposite of the truth. Take any Country which
to. .day buys all its manufactures abroad, under
ever so free trade, and let that Country foster
into thrifty existence establishments which pro-
duce the fabrics it requires, and thisresut always
did, always will, follow-that the cost to the con"
surner is lessened, and the consumption in con.
sequence increased. If every nation on the face
of the earth were to-day manufacturing lts own
Cotton fabrics, the amount of Cotton required
would be far greater than at present, and the
Cotton.p planter would be relieved from his igno
Bile dependence for the reward of his industry on
the combinations and djuggles of the British bank
e,s and brokers'. But until this dependence is
thrown off, and until the Planters learn that their
lands are fitted TO grow something else than Cot
ten, we fear that Depression will be the rule and
Prosperity the exception with the Planting In
terest. The mischief is that they ,oiil grow more
Cotton than the world wants-more, and still
more. If they would but devote one-fourth OF
their Cotton lands TO the culture OF TIE Grape of
Silk, Hemp, &c. at the same time building up
and chcrishing Manufacturesin their own neigh
borhoods, they would obtain larger return for
the diminished Cotton-Crop than they now re-
ceive for the present, and would be slowly but
surely creating the elements OF wider prosperity
and substantial independence. Will they not
think of it?