Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-05-16
THE TRUTH IN A NUTSHELL,

Faes TRAoE-Wu,r IS IT ?-Ihe most per
feet exemplihcation of actual Tree trade which
The world ever saw is 10 be found IN these United
Slales. considered a. tuenty-six Sovereign and
independent communities Each buys what II
pltases OF The others, and sells what they Iespec-
lively please 10 buy OF II, without le orhindrance
without The interference Of Custom-house OH
GERS without charges or duties Of any kind. Is
itnol q convenient ,ysem2 Is il not Just one!
Does il mol promote the interests OF all!
Apply the protective system 10 these STATES,
and each OF them would Law duties upon the pro-
ducts Of each OF The others. New York would
prohibit the admission OF wheat from the West,
and OF cotton and woollen manufactures from
New England or charge them with eXorbiiant
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 duly high enough the
business would be eminenilv profitable 10 The
growers, though emnenily Improbable 10 the
consumers Every State, instead OF exchanging
The commodities which she could most naturally
ard adranlageously produce, for those which OH
er States could more advantageouSly produce,
would, by duties and prohibitions, seek 10 exclude
those foreign commodities. Thus all would do
what they could, 10 invert The order Of Nature
raising oranges in Maine, and making ice in LOU
isiana.
Substitute % nations Tor the 70 American
States, and We are prepared TO see how mutually
beneficial would be 4 system OF free trade, II mt
rnally adopted By those nations. But Il IS said,
other nations lax our commodities, and We must
lax theirs in return. Is this an honest argument
or only pretex2 II The former, then in proper
lion as other nations relax their restrictive syS-
lem we shall do the same. II the latter we shall
secretly depIecae any such change, and perhaps
openly denounce il, as in the case vi The British
Anti-Co!n Law League. The grand object OF
that Association IS the promotion OF Tree trade;
more especially free trade in breadstuifs; and
FIRST Of all in England herself The value Of
breadstutfs imported into Great Britain and Ire
land, has amounted, on an average OF the last IL
wears TO SIT 100000 per annnm; aud would have
been still greater BIZ, Tor the heavy duties. No
nation, perhaps, i 50 deeply interested in re-
peal oflhose duiies-the verv object OF The Anti
Corn Law League rs the United States. Why
then should we, or any OF us, ally ourselves with
The British corn monopolist, against The efforts OF
this most excellent and truly noble association!
Bui we must have revenue. Undoubtedly; and
there is no mode OF raising il So lille burdenSome
70 the people, because 50 litlle perceived BY them
as by duties on imports. We propose no other
mode OF raising it, except the three or four mil
lions realized annually from The sales OF public
lands-we know OF none better Sill, il is Il
mode which bears very hard upon men OF small
means because il compels them to pay almost as
much per head as The same number OF rich men;
whereas, the latter ought 10 pay in proportion 10
their property A man worth 1000 dollars pro-
badly consumes half rs much of duiahle goods,
on an average as man worth 100000 dollars
Consequently the latter pays but twice as much
for the support of Government as the former;
whereas he ought 10 pay 4 hundred times as
much Blu, waving all this We agree that the
necessary revenue, over and above the proceeds
OF land sales j. bes, raised b. duties on imports.
The average annual expenditures Of The Go
vernment ior many years past have been nearly
or quite $4,000, 600 II VIC should keep clear
of wars and other extraordinary charges we may
possibly reduce them 10 S25, 100000. To do this
however, will require the most rigid economy
IL we call the revenue from lands S., 500 600 an
nually, there will remain TO be raised by duties on
imports, $2l 100000. To raise this amount, wonld
REQUIRE an average duty OF twenty-one and a
half per cent. on 100000 900 of imports; which
is about the average OF our mporta,ions for The
last four years. Nearly or quite one-lcnth OF
our imports consist OF specie, which of course
is free of duty. Sundry other articles are ne
cessarily free Of duty, or subject 10 less duty
Than 20 per cent Making these deductions, il
would be found that horizontal duty on all
olhe- articles nus, be in the neighborhood OF -
per cent, in order 10 afford the requisite revenue
And The cast and charges OF importation woul.i be
equal u ahon, 10 per cent. more.
So tha, the wors, that could happen 10 The man
utac,urers, should the doctrines Of the most ultra
free trade men, so called, be carried out, would
be, that they, The manufacturers, would haze 4
protection agains, foreign commodities, Of 40 re-
cent on he rQiuc or ,wo-fitths of the cost .! -
article. Is no, this protection enough Can
il be expcdent TO manufacture, in this country
goods which can be made iwo-htlhs cheaper
el>cwhere9 Cannot our labor be turned 10 better
account in some other way}