Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-08-09

by this mode In the United States all the revenue
Except what arises from the sales Of public lands)
is produced by the tariff
This simple enumeration Of the differences IN the
position of the two countries is sufficient to lead TO
the conclusion that the freetrade system, however
productive of good il may be to the people OF Great
Britain, might be very disastrous one to Introduce
here. But, to look little closer into the matter
What are the articles upon which the British tariff
has lately abandoned or at least greatly relaxed its
hold? They are principally raw materials neces-
sary to the manufacturing interests of that country.
Her manufactures therefore, are vituaLy protected
to the amount Of the duty RENTED In this respect
we cannot follow her example if we would for we
have no similar duties to remit The next step
which Great Britain will take towards free trade
will, most probably be an abandonment of her sys-
tenn of corn laws: this will be another boon to the
manufacturer, and il is wonder how so apparently
unjust and oppressive a tax one upon bread can
SO long have been maintained. But here, again,
there is nothing for the United States to take pat
tern by; for we need no bread from any country.
| The produce of the British tariff of 1912 was,
on an average about g23 900, 900 sterling OF this
amount P2l 100000 was levied on seventeen ar
tcles ; and of this latter amount 81 100000 was
raised upon raw materials used in British manufac-
lures or on articles partly manufactured, and the
remaining g20,O00,0O0 was produced by articles
not in any way competing with the manufactures,
but Of necessary and general consumption. Now,
in the modification of the British tariff. of 1912,
which took place this present year, the greater part
of the one million .fve hundred thousand pounds
which operated against the manufacturer has been
repealed, while the tUenty millions Of pounds up
on articles of general consumption has been very
nearly all retained Our opponents will not ask us
to initiate this step in the British free trade march,
for they say that our manufacturers already receive
too much protection, and that the general consumer
| is too heavily taxed.
Thus then, it appears that we differ entirely
| in our commercial position from Great Britain,
the reaxations she is making in her commercial
code, we could not do it, because have no SINH
lar duties to remit.
The great extent and variety Of our soil furnishes
our people, it may be said, with all the necessaries
| Of life. We raise superabundance Of breadstui1s
and provisions of all kinds; we produce plenty OF
cotton, Of tobacco, and of rice OF WOOL it is true
that last year we imported quantity, valued a
$s5O,OOO; but the necessity for 50 doing is every
year diminishing. We need no importation of iron
"copper" or lead of salt coal, Of timber for nous,
and ship building, of tar PITCH or urpentne, of ashes
Of lime, or of marble. We need supplies from othe
countries of tea and OF coffee these are necessa
res of life, and we admit them free of duty. w,
do not raise either sugar, hemp, or flax enough
for our own consumption, and we import them I'M
der moderate tax. We have to depend upon 70,
reign countries for wines, many varieties of distilled
liquors, for silks, and for spices. These luxu-
ries, and we tax them more heavily. We have be-
gun the manufacture of cotton and wool, of hard
ware and cutlery, of glass and of earthenware, but
are not advanced enough therein 10 be independent
of foreign nations. We protect our infant manu-
factsres in the only way we can protect them, by
the imposition of reasonable duties upon the same
articles when brought from foreign countries. Is
our commercial relation to any other country in
iured by our present system? Is the balance OF
trade turning against us Is the price Of any ar
ticle of consumption perceptbly or materially adj
vansed by it! To all these questions we unhesi-
tatnGy answer, No; and il the converse nerrog-
atories were put we should as unhestatingly an
swer, Yes.
This is our position. II is . prosperous, hap
py one; and we are DESTROYS that il should not be
interfered with. The policy of Great Britain TO
commercial matters has no application TO that posi-
ton. In one thing only we wish to initiate her,
and that is to protect and encourage home industry
and domestic manufactures and we shall best do
so, in our opinion, by holding on to the tariff and
going steadily on in our present course.