The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 184?-1851, 1844-11-13
From he N. Y. Journal of Commerce.
FREE TEs.ADE--WHAT rs III?

The most perfect exempllfcation of actual
flee trade which the world ever saw, is to be
found in these United States, considered as TWEEN
tysix sovereign and independent" communities.
Each buys what il pleases Of the Others, and sells
what they respectively please to buy Of It, with
out let or hind~rance--without the interference
Of cusioln-house otficers-w;thout charges or du-,
ties Of any kind. Is it NOT a convenient system?
Is it not a just oneP Does it not promote the in
tercsts of all? @
Apply the protective system to these States,
and each o. them would lay duties upon the pro-
ducts of each of them would lay duties upon the
products Of each. of the others. New York would
prohibit the admission OF wheat from the West,
and Of cotton and woollcn manufacturers from
New England, or charge them with exorbltant
duties, because she can produce her own wheat,
and manufacture her own cloths. Georgia would
prohibit the importation Of sugar from Louisiana
and elsewhere, because she could grow her own
sugar; and by making the duty high enough, the
business would be eminently profitable 10 the
growers, though eminently Improbable to the
consumers. Every state, instead OF exchanging
the commodities which she could most naturally
and advantageously produce, would, by duties
and prohibitions, seek to exclude those foreign
commodities. Thus all would do what they could
TO. invert the order OF Misunderstanding oranges in
Maine, and making ice in Louisiana.
Substitute twenty-six nations for the twenty
six American Gptes, and we are prepared 10 see
how mutually beneficial would be a system Of
free trade, if mutually adopted by those nations.
But it is said other nations tax our commodities,
and we must tax theirs in return. Is this an HON
est argument, or only a prete&t? If the former,
then in proportion as other nations relax their re-
~strictive system, we shall do the same. If the
latter, we shall secretly deprecate any such change
and perhaps openly denounce it, as in the case
ofthe British anti-corn-law league. The grand
object Of that association is the promotion Of free
trade; more especially free trade in breadstuffs;
and, first of all, in England herself. The value
ofbreadstuffs imported into Great Britain and Ire
land, has amounted, on an average Of the last
twelve wears, TO $I7,000,000 per annu nj; and.
would have been still greater but for the heavy
duties. No nation, perhaps, is so deeply inter-
ested in a repeal ofthose duties-the very object
of the a~nti-corn law league--as the United States
Why then should we, or any Of us, ally ourselves
with the British corn monopolists against the eff
forts 81 this most excellent and truly noble associ-
alton?
But we must have revenue. Undoubtedly;
and there is no mode Of raising 1t so little burden
some TO the people, because so little perceived
by them, as by duties on imports. We propose
no other mode Of raising it, except the three or
four millions realized annually from the sales Of
public lands; we know of none better. Still, II
is a mode which bears very heavy upon men Of
small means, because ii compels them 10 pay al
most as much per head, as the same number Of
rich men whereas the latter ought TO pay ii pro-
portion to their property, Al man worth $1,000
probably consumes half as much ofdatable goods
on an average, as a man worth 100000. Con-
%sequently the latter pays but twice as muchtorlhe
support of government asthe former; whereas he
ought to pay a hundred times as much. But
waving all this, we agree that the necessary rev
Ienue, over and above the proceeds Of land sales,
is best raised by duties on imports. ~.
The average annual expenditures Of the gov-
eminent for many years past, have been nearly
or quite $30,000,0O0, III we should keep clear
of wars and other extraordinary charges, we may
possibly reduce Them 70 $25,000, 600 sIpDdo
this, however, will require the most rigid econo1
my. five call The ievemie from lands $500, Z
900 annually, there will remain TO be raised BY
duties on imports, $$2l 100000. To rlise this
amount would require an average duty OF ga
per cent. on $l00, 000, 900 Of imports WHICH rs
about the average, Of our iwpdttatiors tos the last
four years. Nearly, OF Quite, one t%ehttpof our
imports consists Of specie. which Of course 3 free
| of duty. S1ndry other articles IRE necessarily
Efee Of duty, or subject ioa less duty than 20 per
lcent. Making these deductions, y would be-
found that d horizontal duty on all other articles
must be ii tho neighborhood of25 per cent n
rtorder 10 afford the, requisite %reyentie. And tPc
Icost and charges Of importation would pc equal
10 abnut Is Der cent. more. So that The worst
that could happen 20 lie manufacturers Should