Mobile register and journal. [volume] (Mobile, Ala.) 1841-1849, 1845-10-18

which II was our special effort 10 show should pro
pery be down as in our tapor For ex,mple:-
| lie states The exports
| Including Specie. Erclnding Specie,
! For 1Si1-exporls $l2l ,S5l SOB $iIl.oI7 AL
lmpors 127,946,l77 122.957.544
Balance against U. S. 6,0s6,374 I1,l4o,07s
and thus with the same ominous and msappied
''balance against the United States,'' the editor
goes through statement Of imports and exports. for
an incidental purpose which betrays his confusion
upon the subject, to the present fiscal year of 1916
inclusive, stating the balance as against the United
States in every where there appears 10 be AN
excess Of imports exports, and agce versa and
this occurs in the very first column of his reply 10
our article, nay, in the very paragraph in which he
processes to concur IN opinions, and admits that
the balance Of trade ''as state it," is san ex-
ploded doctrine" An absurdlty so extraordinary
would scarcely he credible if il did not, as il does
in tins case stare in the face, and let as see with
what infinite compacency man may sometimes
discourse OF his adversarys lack Of "clear percep-
ton," and who in the attempt 10 enlighten him,
does little more than make his own darkness yisi-
ble Indeed, the whole object of the article we are
noticing, seems to he rather to deliver the editor from
unpleasant category, and thus to avoid the impu-
tation of defending a manifest absurdity, than TO
throw any useful ligh; lie subject. Such an abb
surdiy, he sees, can no longer be defended pausi-
bly,. while he by no means certain that its en-.
tire abandonment may not materially damage the
kindred fallacIes which he is called upon TO Defend
Hence, instead Of coniessng that his party is clearly
in the wrong on the subject, and explaining The mat.
ter that they understand it, he turns to
attack those whom he ought rather to hank for dis
semnating sound principles Of political economy.
Hence, TOO the attempt. by garbllns possage from
our article, 10 show want of insight on our part
and similar tr. atmenl Of the Washington Union
and its correspondent. This species Of tactics, we
must say, r2hects lutte CIR dit print of such
character and influence as the National Iutelligen-
Ger.
If the editor agrees with us in our notions of the
Balance Of Trade, il had better let "Tom Tough"
and 1.-The Union" alone, and set industriousy to
work upon the benighled Understandings of his owl
contributors and his fraternity of party presses and
wing orators, who have been SO long cropping their
way through The swamps and quagmIres Of laIlacy
and ignorance by the light ofthis gnis atuus, which,
we are informed, has at length "exploded." Unless
this be done they will lose their way, and find them
Selves to their surprise and dismay, in The camp of
the enemy.
Til. 'ghost" of the balance Of trade--the propo-
Simon that nation, to be prosperous, must export
than it imPor,s-has not been coufned to the
adyocstes Of the Protective system in The United
States. 1t is delnsion that has prevailed wherever
tina, system has found footing In England, in
France, in Germany-every where-unli Of late
years it has been fallacy accepted truth. True,
the advocates of free trade and unrestricted COM
nerce have thoroughly exposed the folly of The
thing, that wellrinforined man in Europe would,
at this day, risk his reputation by defending ii. But
this is due to the great uminaries Of Political Eco
nomy, with whom, on the subject of the Protective
System, the Inelligencer and its party are at deadly
hostility. II was the fallacy Of the Protective Sys-
TEN that gave birth 10 the balance of trade 'sas we
stated it," 1t was the Political Economists who
explained it we did, and thus destroyed the pro-
geny, not less delormed than the present system,
nor less dscredable the governments that sought
TO regulate their commerce by its despotc and mis-
chevous guidance. "Whatf," says Mr.. Say in his
able work on political economy, "are we 10 think of
the Report at the French Minister Of the Interior in
1918, who makes the total EXPORTS inclusive Of spe-
Gle, but 1888 millions Of francs, and the total imports
Intrusive of specie, but $50 mlions-a statement
upon which he feicitates the nation the most fa-
vorsble that has been presented Whereas this
balance shows. on lie contrary, what every body
felt and knew, that the commerce OF France was
then making immense losses in consequence Of the
bunders OF its administration, and ills total igaor-
amce of the first principles OF Political Economy'
These are precisely the kinds Of statements upon
which large majority Of the Wing party would te.
liciiae the United States; and they are precisely
the staten enls which it was effort to show ought
to be deplored. That the Wing party, party,
are still in the benghted condition of The French
Minister Of 1918, we are quite sure, the denial Of
Tho lnielligencer Notwithstanding.
We shall not consume more space by dissecting
the paragraph in which our Contemporary would per-
suads his readers that we have fallen into the error
we sought to expose. No one who has read our
article, aud especially the quotation from Mr.. Web
sters Speech in which the whole subject is u.
minously discussed, can find any Inconsistency or
ambiguity 10 what we have written. We did not
say in words, or by Intcndment, that in order to
render trade lucrative, the imports must exceed
'he exports in goods or merchandise alone By re-
err'nR 70 the context il will be seen, that by "ho