Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1846-04-27
Total

ms reduced 10 our currency would %
per bushel delivered m England And in lS43 there
still further reductions; that wheat from the Baltic could
be delivered IN England without duty 81 cents and from
the BLACK Sea ut Io or 80 cents per bushea price much
less than our wheat could be purchased ports
Ihls as appears 10 me- is Just and fair view Of the
subject But II may be said thar have proved too much
And the argument be sound, send any grain
Great Britain But every practical man knows. that be-
tween two great commercial nations, article will be OK
ported from TO the other when the prices in the two
countries seem to forbid The wheat that have d.
rect to Great Britain IT, considerable extent the result
OF accidental causes merchant is indebted abroad and
must send form something dischsIge bs debt and not
being able to meet the demand in spece he forward
quantity OF Hour. Or vessel going out without full
cargo, and will take grain for trGe Or, specula
tor has large OF -four hand bought perhaps on
six months and is obliged send ada sacrifice Our
gram goes TO England manly in the shape -four BY which
saving OF 10 or 10 per cent. the export Of wheat
reezed These the causes, than any thing else
which enable Us to supply the English market to the small
extent we now do Ask merchants who have had ex-
penenes in this trade and they will generally tell Won that
it's pfeearous business, aud in which more has
been lost than made.
But gentlemen seem suppose that the repeal the corn
laws will give new Impulse this trade. But how is
thsi On what principle, demand, do they base their
calcnlauonN II these laws modified repealed, II
viii be done by general law, applicable alike to all
tons. The present law imposes duty upon wheat
iDw the United States than upon wheat from the Baluc
Suppose those duties be reduced half or annued en-
ufey, the north Of Europe will enjoy oil the advantages
OF these changes as well The scarcity Of grain in
Europe, the partial failure Of the wheat CROP and the
disease among the piatoes enable Us at the present time
10 send forth unusual quantity p, IL unsaCe 10 res
son from single year. IN 1887, We have already
sceu ~ Imported 1000, 900 bushels Of wheat into the
United States and reason from that year. we
should be compelled 10 admit that could not raise DOR
own breadstuH II we would reason correctly on subjects
such ne this we must take succession Of years into the
account: and. we do this. shall think, al once per-
ooye that modification Of the English corn laws ,youd
| not benefit us at ell.
We have had practical illustration Of this principle
As have before said The modification Of tho English
corn laws IN 1872 did not increase the demand Tor grain in
Great Britain; the contrary the frat enrc wear after
the reduction, the importation into Great Britain c of
more than onshAlf Aud how IL with our eS port 1,
that mSrket7 The reduction in IS12, was about equal
q to w3o u the present duty; and Sir Robert Peel does
not propose 70 ake of Al the duty present n the pro-
posed reduction y operate % much In our favor we
may expect to find that the reduction TO- 1912 pro-
| Wd a crest blessing to the u. States And how was il
/ with that modification
| will sli yon. Mr.. Chairman. The reduction took
place IN April 1912 end telling in the midst Of the com
ereal year. bavs no means Of determining s effect upon
our exports Tor that year; will, therefore throw that
year cot Of The account, ond take tho years
and tie two succeeding l542. In the preceding viz
1890 and 1881, We exported 10 Great Britain On average
Of 23gOOOO bushels year; but in tho succeeding viz
1873 and l54f, exported only average Of 49, 500
bushels year Bot cir, wish do perfect Justice g.
the subject, readily admii that by change in our com.
merca saT, the year iS43 consisted o only nine mon
y, there fore to add 10 II another quarter make il
Of The usuai length Buff add onc-tld the imports
Of that year, make Up four quarters ~ months
We nave even theu ~ iof the Two
rny 4767OO buFhols yes which IN FAC, !sss dan ono
fifth - the acreage export Of the years preceding Tho
moJi6oaugn Of he English laws I an not sUpetf-
cal enough asSbo this telling 81 Of export ofwhoa
the reduction Of the british du1es but he before
ne shows inconiosaby that whesi trade with England
sgoverned by laws more Efficient more CONTROLLING Than
ay rate Of duly j. " not then, perfectly propostorOUs %
mliaan that the partial reduction prospective repeal Of
the British duty upon wheat will Of necessity enable Ne 10
send more Of our breadstuf 10 that kiDgdom1
But. sir though ntelgon gentleman can think see
any just cause for believing that shall gain materially
N the direct trade u Isusi DO perfectly obvious that
shall lose IN an indirect rsde With Crest Britain. Our
best and In fact principal trade with tho mother coun-
ny IN the article question has been through Canads-
For the sst seven yoa we have into Canada ~ $50
e92 bo'bels Of wheat, while direct ade Enasnd
a. the same time has amounted 10 only 1874 5S3 bushels
being s1-two per cent 10 Canada Than England.
Or we take the last three years. have cent into Ca
ina n "a hua