Mobile register and journal. [volume] (Mobile, Ala.) 1841-1849, 1845-10-18
The National Intelligence and tho
Balance or Trade

The "National Inegencer'' Of the I'd instsn,
besows upon ourselves and our distinguished cotem.
porary, the "Union," joint notice of nearly three
CO 'unns, in reply 10 article Of the 18th utimo
elected by detailed statement of the commerce Of
the United States with the other nations of the A.
mefiran continent, which appeared in the InteIll.
gences OF the I'd Of September and which was no.
tlced by us as demonstrating, by the Custom House
returns ihe iavore statistics Of the Tariff p,rty)
Inc aosurd'iy oil The balance Of trade, as that party
Is in the habit of stating it.
We congratulate the Intelligencer, but not ha
so much MS we Congratulate ourselves and The add.
vocates OF free trade and unrestricted commerce.
nj having found, at last, one respectable Wbo
journal that repudates the "exploded doctrine' Of
the balance Of trade. 1t is n cheering prosnect n,
victory when the enemy, through the smoke and dust
OF the battle, is dscernsd abandoning the outposts
of his fasrness. "Maets rirtms!" II the editor
continues he has begun he will at length discoy.r
and concur with Sir Robert Peel, that '.ihe protect
i've system cannot, either in whole or in part, be de
Tended on principle
We wish we could close here, with simply quoting
our distinguished contemporary, that he fully agrees
with us that The doctrine of "lhe balance Of trade,
as we stated 1t, is an exploded one." But he
adds that The doctrine Of the balance of trade, "as
ICE erptain it, is not the doctrine Of the Wing party
and thus seeks, by bold, though evasive and Gas II
seems 10 us) most disnsenuous dsavowal, to shield
himself and his party from the force of an argument,
which cat only be encountered with credit by turn.
10 g. a..
binary, as, ut the very time when the disavowal was
made, series of essays, under the imposing sigma.
ture Of "Madson,' was in a course of publication
in that p per, announcing, with vast assumption Of
practical knowledge, the selflame doctrine now pro-
nounced "exploded"-an this without one word OF
dissent, or even Of explanatory comment from the
editor.
Is il possible that the Inlelgencer can be g-
noran Of the fact that the doctrine Of the balance
oil trade, not indeed "explained" it-for no
one would be silly enough TO defend clearly en-
planned absurdty--but as we stated il, is the doe
'r'he oil very large majority Of its party? Can he
pretend 10 he ignorant that il Is the identica doc
irine pnt forth by Mr.. Clay while Speaker of the
House OF Representatives in 1924, in the celebrated
debate upon the Tariff of that year, and echoed by
nearly all bis party who participated in that debate,
until the mastery exposure of Mr.. Webster. which
we quoted an appendix 10 our article, and which.
like the dawn Of approaching light. drove back ..,be
ghost" he termed il. TO the shades of darkness
from which ii had sprung? The doctrine las we
explained it" may not be the doctrine Of the whis
party but the doctrine 'as we stated it," is-and
that Tho Ia,a l..
Knows too that Mr.. Clay so stated. and attempted
not 10 explain-but, 10 defend il ia 1924, and that
IL Is SO stated, and has been. by nearly every wing
press IN every quarter Of the Union for the last If
tssa or twenty years.