Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-10-04

specie than had been the case in any previous
year" the tariff Of 1912 had put almost stop
to imports, and compelled us to accept of $44 900,
900 worth Of goods and $40, OOO, 900 in specie, in
return for $S4O00,000 worth of produce" thus
leading the reader to the inference that the United
States really lost $20,OOO,OO0 by the commerce of
that year. The fact no doubt, was, that credit to
that amount, and probably larger, owing TO the
addition of profits and expenses on Shipment was
established in the countries which we traded with,
and which would be employed either in liquidation
OF former obligations or in the creation Of credit
on which TO base future mercantile transactions.
We have observed tantamOunt arguments (if we
may call them such) in other ant-tarff journals,
which were we to notice we could only repeat what
we have already said.
But some change seems TO have come over g the
spirit OF the dream" of the editor of the Union -
for we do not think that he is yet wide awake to
the subject In his leading article Of the 18th Sep
TENDER he says: "We are not the enemies of Anne
rcan manufactures" We go for revenue, for
revenues sake. If such ratio should furnish in
cdentar Tor, as Mr.. SEWER called it, accidentally
protection, which it will inevitably contribute, no
reasonable man can make any reasonable objec-
ton to it, And again: !" We repeat it, that we
are not the enemies of manufactures - and then
he goes on prasing !" the enterprise of our country
men," and their inventive genius" our " fine ma
terials to manufacture, cheap provisions, our
'laborsaving machines, our looms, and our carding
and spinning apparatus" adding the remark that
considerable portion of our population is destn-
ed, from the nature of their position and the pecu-
liarity of their circumstances to engage in manu-
features, whether they are protected or not" He
then relapses into his old strain about high pro-
lection of manufacturers - /" extravagant dividends
OF fifteen to thirty per cent; taxes upon far
mers, merchants, and mechanics for the benefit of
manufacturers !" farmers making only four per
cent on their FARMS oppressive tariff - reve
nue. Standard" &c. The lucid interval was short
one, but it certainly occurred. Whose hand adj
ministered the Alternative medicine we presume not
to say; but, by whatever hand, repetition of the
dose may be safely recommended.
But. in our desire to notice these favorable symp-
toms in the case Of the government paper, we are
losing sight of our subject, the balance of trade.
And on this point the sum and substance of what
we wish to say is briefly this The doctrine that
the balance of trade is shown by the Treasury state
ment OF Exports and Imports, we in common with
many among both friends and opponents of the pro-
tective system, hold TO be exploded. But we hold,
with the advocates of the tariff that the real balance
of trade, we have endeavored to define 1t, is
most important item to be ascertaned for, when as
certaned, it would form accurate measure Of our
commercial prosperity, and good guide for the re-
The valuation of exports and imports at the home
customhouses, although furnishes the basis of the
annual Treasury statement to their amount, is of
no service whatever in enabling to ascertain the
real balance of trade which real balance of trade,
be it remembered is the amount left unpaid either
by or to the United States at the end of the year,
addition to what has been paid on the transactions
of the year in specie bills of exchange. The cor
respondent of the Union," who calls himself
" Tom Tough says "If different system of
/ valuation were adopted the differences of value
i Tbetween the imports and exports would not APP
pear so considerable. For example: if the amount
Of the sales of the outward cargoes were taken as
the data of calculation, it would be found that the
balance Of trade, as it is called, would be greatly
/ diminished, if not annihilated The foreign pur-
chases would then correspond with the sales in
foreign ports, and there would be apparent ba-
lance OF trade FOR political economists to humbug
their readers with
The suggestion that g the amount of the sales of
the outward cargoes' should be taken " as the data
| of calculation" is very good one. We do not per-
ceive, however, why the foreign purchases ,coud
then correspond NTH The sales in foreign ports"
unless we had no credit in those foreign ports
What is to prevent an American merchant from
shipping cargo of produce to Liverpool, which
sells there for $40 900, and purchasing cargo Of
manufactured goods there for which he is to pay
$4,000. provided he has credit for $4,000?
Would not the real balance of trade be ascertain
ed by taking the amount of foreign sales, above
alluded to, for one side of the account, and the
amount Of foreign purchases, to be ascertained by
the production Of bona fde invoices, for the other
side of the account And could not this be done
with great ease, and would not very valuable results
flow from the possession of these materials There
could be no humbug, no falacy, here; we should
have to pay receive, in cash, the difference be-
tween these amounts. We could then talk under
standingy, and legslate wisely, upon tariffs manu-
features, protection, and revenue.
k-WAR SONG.