Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-07-28
so9,aO ss,Oso,7ls
l,oi7,l62 5,467 ,4l2
9i6,as7 $685.

Il /, here shown that our exports OF -four ave-
raced uer annum from 1921 10 1924, inclusive,
9O9 $40 barrels, al an average price per harfei
during that period OF SIS So. But from 1875 10
1882 inclusive, our exports OF flour averaged per
annum OF, l62 barrels, al an average price per
barrel during that period OF So 50. Here II Is
seen that, in the latter period under the high Ia
riff policy, We shipped more -four, and at less pr
ccs, than in The first. But will hasten on TO The
mex, case in point. From 1883 10 1912 We ex-
nored an annual average oil 946, 2o7 barrels Of
dour al an average price per barrel Of ;.6 0l Tor
the entire period. But though we exported from
1925 10 1882 on an average per annum l,Ol7 l62
barrels of -four, and from 1888 10 lc42 only on
an average per annum 81 9i6 2SI barrels, YET
strange as il NAV seem, our exports oil flour in
,he lqifer period brought annually into The coun-
trv s223 in more money than in the former,
when we exported so much larger quantity. SO,
nnder reducing scale of duties, the farmers re-
ceiyed better prices for their -four, both at home
and abroad. But from 1883 10 1912, we exported
on an average per annum l,l50,426 barrels oil
-four, at an average annual price per barrel oil
only 81 So. Thus, Notwithstanding The great IN
crease in the average quantity per annum from
1913 to IS45, inclusive, over the former period
from 1893 10 1912, yet The -four exported in The
latter. during lon duties, brought annually into
the country 1852, sol more money than the lat
ger quantity exported since The passage OF the
present tariff law. The tables prove, that under
The high tariff we exported much larger qitati,-
IN OF flour, and greatly reduced Precs per barrel,
than we did ric1l The daLleS rsrc reduced.
The effort oflhe manufacturers TO force honie
market is here proven not only 10 be failirc,
butt the mode in which they propose 10 accomplish
i, is wrong in principle; and the arguments adj
duced 10 support il are not only proven by e1pe-
rience to be iaacious, but 10 persist in urging
them now is ridiculous.
Thus we find that the homo market does not en-
hance the price OF our agricultural staples; but
we are forcibly taught the TACT, that as you re-
sh1ct commerce you impair the value oil our e1-
ports; and on the other hand, that as you iDeTake
commerce from these restrictions, you thereby
give an impulse 10 trade, and so augment their
value When BY the operation Of your resiric-
tive policy the agrcuuris,s gel lor prices for
their produce, you diminish their ability 10 pur.
chase or TO give employment to others, and thus
BY bringing about low prices for agricultural sta.
pies, you create hard times in the planting and
farming States, and you thus force them 10 con-
sumo less and export more IN quantity, but also lo
get less in price. So, too hard times thus brought
about equally curlail the ability of all others &c
consume our staples as well as your manufac-
lures; and The system which il was said would
stimulate and sustain good home market fol
our agricultural productions, not only fail:
TO accomplish that result but ends BY indu
cling yrosraiioas in the agricultural States, anc
thai affects the general ability OF the country &c
consume goods. Thus this grasping cupidity O.
associated wealth, in aiming, by legislative dev
ces and sophislical arguments, 10 control the la
Dor of Tho country, and reap all the profits By mo-
nopoizne he home market, is aplin lew year:
10 defeat ITSELF because i; destroys The ability O
the American consumers TO purchase.
This failure of continuing TO receive rich con
lrbutions from the community, induces the man
ufacturers again, in some short time, to call or
Congress for gel higher protection: Therefore
The more We grant, the more they demand; anc
for the simple reason tina, the principle is radical
~ wrong and pernicious in its tendency. Blu