Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-08-09
DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL POSITIONS OF TIKI
UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN


United States, the course Of the British Ministry in
its late reduction Of duties certain articles Of inn
port, and the abolition Of them upon others. The
4 Constitution" one of the Administration papers
Id this city, in late number reoices in g the rapid
progress which the principles Of free trade are max
ing amongst the monopoly ridden and over-taxed
people Of the British nation; exults especially in
the operations of the League" free-trade asso-
cation in that country and exhausts itself in admi-
ration of the argument Of its orators in favor Of the
principles of free trade so demonstrative Of the IN
justice Of Protective System &c. This, which
we believe to be the honest conviction Of the con-
ductors Of the press in which we find il, is the Ian
ye held nearly universally by the Administration
i,resses many of them undoubtedly with sincerity
and in good faith with their readers, but by some
Oil of policy and out of subservience to what is
Supposed to be the party law.
The radical error Of those who argue from the
Free Trade policy Of Sir Robert PEEL the expe-
dency of throwing open the ports OF this country
to the free admission of all foreign products and
manufacturers other words, the abolition of the
Tarff-consists in their not taking into consdera-
ton the different circumstances of the actual
commercial positions Of Great Britain and the Uni
led States. The argument would be entitled to
very serious consideration, were the condition Of
the two countries the same but that policy which
may prove to be Of the most vital importance TO
England giving employment and sustenance to addi-
honal thousands Of her artisans, voaid produce
Numerically opposite effects here.
In this approach to free trade in England, which
iscalled the triumph of great principle, there is no
great principle in any general sense of the word, in
yoved. II is merely the application Of good useful
common sense, on the part Of Sir RoBERT PEEL, to
the existing circumstances of his country. But the
course which he has pursued as adapted to the cir
cumstances Of his own country, is one which, we
venture to say, that enlightened statesman himself
would not recommend to adoption by the United
States. That he would not, is evident from the
difference Of his policy in 1912 from that pursued
RI ls45. In the former year, reduction of the
duties on sugar was postponed until the result of
pending negotiations with Brazil for modification
of duties on imports Of British goods obtained
but, in ls45, notwithstanding we have increased
our import duties upon British goods, he takes off
the duties upon four-ifths of our exports without
requiring any reciprocal action on our part. The
inference is that what he required Of Brazil in 1912
was reasonable and not prinaa facie in opposition
to the interests of that country, and therefore he
asked it. But he asked nothing Of the United
States of a similar kind in ls45, because it would
have been unreasonable to expect that we should do
that which would have proved so manifestly inju-
rious to us. England has not abandoned the
principle Of negotiating for the reduction Of bur-
thens on the citizens OF other countries, because
they are about to remove burthens on their own"
says a leading English journal. She never adopted
such principle because such principle is not found
ed on the general commercial relations of the world
nor IA the nature OF things Her conduct in 1912
towards Brazil. and towards this country during the
present year, prove that she has, in her late action
applied no general rule, but merely made such
notifications of her own tariff as suited her own
purposes with reference to the peculiar positions Of
the countries to which these notifications applied
And this is the proper way of treating all general
principles, adapting them to the circumstances of
the case to which they are applied-the principles
remaining the same under all circumstances, the
question to be settled being the extent Of their
applicability.
Perhaps there are no two countries on the face Of
the earth whose commercial conditions are so dame
trically opposed TO each other as the u. States and
Great Britain. The former has sparse population;
abe latter redundant one. The former has hundreds
Omiliions Of acres out in the undisturb
ed hoyday Of nature, and waiting for the operations
of the axe and the plough the latter has nearly cult
waited her limited domain TO the maximum of produc-
tveness. The United States annually produce and
export an immense surplus of ra,c material Great
Britain, the contrary, exports scarcely any raw
material, and can prosper only through the annual
expectation of large amount Of manufactured art
cles. The United States possesses comparatively
small capital and limited but rapidly increasing Skill
and has to pay high wages for labor in manufac-
fIres Great Britain has immense capital great
skill, the result Of long practices and cheap labor
in aid of her manufactures. We cannot compete
with her in manufactures upon equal terms so long
as this directly opposite state Of things continues to
exist We must increase our capital and our skill,
and we must find some equivalent for our more ex-
pensive sbor-for no one will, we suppose, at this
day, advocate the reduction of the wages Of our ar-
sans to the level Of those which are paid in Eng
and-before we enter the lists n-handed with
the manufacturers Of Europe.
Two other very distinctive points of difference
may also be alluded to. One is that Great Britain
Is saddled with an immense national debt. the in
n A. l. 4 - =