The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-15

Ii Is here shown that our exports OF -four aver
aged per annum, from 1891 to 1924 inclusive,
ring that period of IS So. But from 1925 to 1892,
inclusive, our exports of -four averaged per annum
l,0l7, l62 barrels, at an average price per barrel
during that period of IS 80. Here il is seen that,
in the latter period, under the high tariff policy,
we shipped more -four, and at less prices, than in
the first. But will hasten TO the next case in
point. From 1883 to ls4a we experted an annual
average Of $40 267 barrels Of -four, at an average
price per barrel Of S6 OIL for the entire period But
though we exported from 1895 to 1892 on an aver
age per annnm of, 1862 barrels of -four, and from
1893 to l642 only on an average per annum of $780,
267 barrels, yet, strange rs 1t may seem, our ex.
ports of -four in the latter period brought annually
into the country 1922, al more money than in the
former when we exported so much larger quantity.
So, under reducing scale of duties the farmers
ceved better prices for their -four, both at home and
abroad. But from l643 TO l645 we exported on an
average annum l,l58,426 barrels of flour, at an
average annual price per barrel of only "a S.
Thus, Notwithstanding the great increase in the
average quantity per annum from 1843 to lS45, in
elusive, over the former period from 1888 to l842
yet the -four exported in the latter during low du-
ties, brought annually into the country $3.50, sol
more money than the larger quantity exported since
the passage of the present tariff law. The tables
prove, that under the high tariff we exported a
much larger quantity Of flour, and at greatly reduced
prices per barrel, than we did ,ohen the duties
d,.ced. -.
The effort Of the manufacturers to force a home
market is here proven not only to be failure, but
the mode in which they propose ts accomplish it
is wrong in principle; and the arguments adduced
to support it are not only proven by experience to
be fallacious, but to persist in urging them now is
ridiculous n /" 2a-rrHr.
I Thus we find that the home market does not en-
hance the price of our agricultural staples; but
orcihly taught the fact that you restrict COM
metce YOU impair the,vaue Of our exports; and, on
the other hand. that as you berate commerce from
these restrictions, you thereby give an impulse to
trade, and augment their value. When by the
operation of your restrictive policy, the agricutursts
get low prices for their produce, you diminish their
ability to purchase or to give employment TO others,
and thus, by bringing about low prices for agricul
tural staples, you create hard times in the planting
and farming States and you thus force them to con-
sumo less and export more in quantity, but also to
get less in price. So, too hard times thus brought
about equally curail the ability ofa others to con-
sumo our staples as well as your manufacturers; and
the system which il was said would stimulate and
sustain good home market for our agricultural
productions not only fails to accomplish that result,
but ends by inducing prostraton in the agricultural
States, and that affects the general ability of the
country to consume goods. Thus this grasping Gu
pidity fassoca,ed wealth, in aiming by Legislative
devices and sophistIcal arguments, TO control the
labor of the country, and reap all the profits by
monopolizng the home market, is apt in few
years to defeat ITSELF because il destroys the ability
| of the American consumers to purchase. ".
This failure of continuing tn receive rich contri-
buttons from the community, induces the manufac-
turers again, in short time, to call Congress
! for yet higher projections. Therefore, the more we
grant, the more they demand; and for the simple
reason that the principle is radically wrong and
pernicious in its tendency. But there was never
a greater misnomer applied to any system than to
call the advocates Of high duties the peculiar friends
of the labor of the country. The catchwords Of
'sprotectpg free American labor against the pau
per labor Of Europe" is a favore term with those
| who advocate restrictive duties, and might have
some foundation in truth were the manufacturing
establishments, the capital invested and the profits
resulting therefrom equally divided out amongst the
poor operatives; if the law required that all the
profits orer six per cent should be equally dpided
between the hands employed. Were this the case
in fact, then these gentlemen might pirate Of pro-
tccting American labor. But the facts are exactly
the opposite: the gentlemen Of capital own the fac
tories, and they enjoy the profits Therefore their
system is for the benefit Of capital and not labor
| But do not the mechanics, the commercial men,
the sailors, and the sgricultursts pre.emnently
constitute the free American laborso Are not
these great, honest, industrious, and enterprising
classes to- he computed or thought Of when you
speak Of "free American labor" When their pur-
suits are Improbable, do they call on Congress- to
legslase them into high prices, and to force the
msrity to deal with them and contribute to their
prosperity Yet these the classes to be taxed
for the benefit Of American associated ,oeoih, EN-.
| ployed in misunderstanding. n safl 7s EsNsb'
But il may be argued that the tables last referred
to- relating to cotton, tobacco, and four are arbi.
trsrily arranged, and that the duties were not high
Il or low the several periods thus marked IL they
erronsous u is because your records 10; bu
IL true, they refute every argument urged by thos,
who are for placing heavy restrictions on commerce