Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1845-10-16
Free Trade--what is lit

peases of the Others and sells what they respectively
please to buy of it, without let hindrance-
the interference of Custom-house oficers-without
charges or duties of any kind. Is 1t convenient
system Is 1t not Just one Does it not promote
the interests of all
Apply the protective system to these States, and
each Of them would lay duties upon the products 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 exorbiant Duties because she can produce
herI 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 duty high enough,
the business would be eminently profitable 10 the
growers; though eminently Improbable to the
ers. Every State instead of exchanging the commo-
dties which she could most naturally and advanta-
geousy produce, for those which, other States could
most advantageously produce would by duties and
prohibitions, seek TO exclude those foreign commod-
ties. Thus all would do what they could, to invert the
order OF nature = raising oranges In Maine, and
making ice in Louisiana.
Substitute 26 nations for the 26 American States
and we prepared to how mutually beneficial
would be system of free trade, if mutually adopted
by those nations. But 1T Is said, other nations tax
our commodities, and must tax theirs Id return.
Is this an honest argument, only pretext! If the
former, then IN proportion other nations relax their
restrictive system, we shall do the same. If the
latter, shall secretly deprecate any such change,
and perhaps openly denounce It, in the case of the
British Anti-Corn Law League. The grand object
of that Association is the promotion of free trade
more especially free trade in breadsufs and first of
all, In Engl land herself. The value of breadstufs
imported into Great Britain and Ireland has amount
ed, an average of the last twelve years, to ST.
100000 per annum; and would have been still greater
but for the heavy duties No nation, perhaps is so
deeply interested in repeal of those duties-the very
object of the Anti-Corn Law Leagues the United
Sfafn1 hr-4h CHI Ill
selves with the Britshcorn monopolsts, against the
efforts of the most excellent and truly noble associa-
/ ton
But we must have revenue. Undoubtedly; and
there is mode of raising little burGensome
the people, because little perceived by them as by
duties on imports. We propose no other mode of
raising it, except the three four millions realized
annually from the sales of public lands; we know of
none better. Still, it is a mode which bears very
hard upon men of small means, because it compels
them to pay almost much per head, as the same
number of rich men, whereas the latter ought pay
in proportion TO their property. A man worth $1,000
probably consumes half as much of dutiable goods
on an average, as man worth 100000. COnse-
quenty the latter pays but twice much for the sup
port of Government the former whereas he ought
to pay hundred times much. But waving all
this we agree that the necessary revenue over and
above the proceeds of land sales is best raised by
duties on imports.
ment for many years past have been nearly quite
S30,0O0,0 900. If we should keep clear of wars and
ether extraordinary charges may possibly reduce
them to 25, 900 900. To do this, however Will re-
quire the most rigid economy. we call the revenue
from lands $3500,0G0 annually there will remain tc
be raised by duties imports, So, 800. To raise
this amount, would require an average duty of 81
per cent 800, 0OO, 900 of Imports which is about
the average of importatons for the last years
Nearly quite one-tenth of our imports consists OF
SPECIE which of course is free of duty Sundry other
articles necessarily free of duty, subject to
less duty than 20 per cent Making these deductions
it would be found that horizontal duty on all other
articles must be in the neighborhood IF % per cent
in order to afford the requisite revenues. And the
cost and charges of Importation would be equal tC
about 10 per cent. more.
So that the worst that could happen to the manu-
facturers should the doctrines of the most ultra free
trade men, so called, be carried out, would be, tina
they, the manufacturers, would have a protection
against foreign, commodities, of 40 per cent on thu
ualue or two fifths of thee of the article Is no
this protection enough Can it be cxpedient to man
ufacture, in this country, goods which be made
two-ffths cheaper elsewhere! Cannot our labor b
turned to better account In some other way
But most free trade men are willing to make some
discrimination in favor of particular articles. Nc
Kay's bill, which before Congress the last ses
sion, made a discrimination. The free trade mel
generally would have been satisfied with that bill
They would be satisfied with 1t now. The maximum
range of duties in that biz with the exception of
few articles, was 80 per cert ad valorem. Then adj
10 per cent for cost of Importation, and it makes
protection to the American manufacturer of 40 pc
cent At this rate of duty shifting which costs q
cents in Manchester could only be laid down here TO-
cents, thus,
Cost in Manchester Z %
Duty and expenses 40 per cent. 3 26