Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1846-08-05

o. We take the following article on
the tariff and protection, says the Ohlo
Statesman. from the Boston Chronotype, a
paper conducted with great ability by the
celebrated ELIzuR WRIoHT, one OF the best
writers Of the day, and a thorough radical
on all subjects. 1t Is one Of the cleverest
things we have ever seen directed against
the great whig humbug Of the day, andpar-
ticularly interesting at this time when the
subject Of protection is undergoing a most
exciting discussion:
"A Free Trade Tariff
This comes in the category ofwhite black
loud silences, liberal chains and free hand
cuffs.
A tariff is tax on consumption, on
mouths, on children. For convenience it
comes at its object indirectly, pouncing up
on foreign trade. To call that trade free
which is burdened at all with it, is to mis-
call it. There can be no free trade while
there are custom-houses to shackle it. IT.
is no part Of our business, therefore, to de-
fend Free Trade Tariff though we con-
fess pretty firm belief that Free Trade is
the true theory of every country, both in
theory and practice; and that direct taxa
ton Is the only just plan of raising reve-
nue.. In theory, free trade is right, for it
only means that people should buy and sell
where they can do it most proftably. 1t
trade isto be justified at all, free trade is
the most iustifyable sort Of it. 1t is non
sense to talk of a rule of trade for nation,
from that which applies TO an individual.
Nations do not trade except through indi-
viduals. If individuals may be trusted to
trade in one country, why not in another?
Ifthey may be trusted to trade under tax,
why not without tax? We must entirely
Danish from the question, the consideration
of revenue, we are considering only wheth.
er or not the freedom Of trade is good. If
II is not good, it is because the people who
trade are not so competent to manage their
own affairs, as some other people are. 1t
they were, they would only make the best
bargains; and of course their freedom to
do so would not be an evil. But it is alb
surd to say that people who are not under
commissions oflunacy are not the best quail
ifed to make their bargains, and are not as
we'll qualified to make them in one country
as another. If all people are qualified to
do their own trading, who in heavens name
is to do it for them? Can any one of them
trade better for others than for himselfe II
a part are qualified to trade, there is no
need of saying to them, make your bargains
in Java and not China, they know what
to do as well as you; if they can do better
at home than abroad, they will do it. If
there are other simpletons who have not
the wit to trade profitably, and you take
the business out of their hands into yours,
you must do it for the whole, and not for
this and that country: wit is not bounded
geographically.
Reader, this is the simple, naked theoret-
ical question of free trade. If you go to
work TO confound it with half dozen other
questions, you make pretty mess Of it,
and persuade yourself Of hundred absurd
tiles. But the objection will be urged that
it is only theoretical, not practical. We
will present it in practical light then.
Free trade does exist, and has existed be-
tween from thirteen to twenty-six sovereign
republics, for fifty years or more, and who
says it is failure? you have only to cut
off the eastern Hemisphere, and shave down
the western little, and there would be no.
thingibut free trade in the world. Now, o
restrictionist, take any one. of the twenty
six sovereign States of the Union, and say
ifu could be benefited by any restrictions
on trade with the rest. Individuals and
classes might be enriched by it to be sure,
but there is not man claiming the small
est thimble-full of brains, who would not
say that the state as whole would be made
the poorer by the restriction, if it operated
at ali-and lift did not operate, it would be
no restriction. free trade is good between
twenty or thirty different counties, extend
ing over space of 1000 miles square, how
does it become bad the moment you over
step that extent? If trade must be trammel-
ed against European industry for the bene-
fit of Massachusetts industry, why should it
not be trammelled against Massachusetts,
industry for the benefit of that of Ohio?-
We should like to see Mr.. Abbott Law
renee and Mr.. Nathan Appleton come up
to the work like men, and answer this ques-
ton. Let them, if they can, tell US why
sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gan
der. live areto have restrictions on trade,
lest the industry of Massachusetts should
be overwhelmed by foreign production, let
them tell Dky It would not, on the same
principle, be wise to restrict internal trade,
lest the weavers of Pittsburgh should be o.
verwhelmed with the superabundance oil
the webbs Of Lowell, and the farmers o.
Massachusetts be prostrated by the plenty
of wheat and corn in Illinois. How woult
our cotton lords of American Manches
ter like to have the plebian landlord
Of Nev England get the constitution an
laws so nended as to give them nice pro
lection against Western -four and pork
and set the spindles to buzzing on the Cay
ahoga and St. Joseph's, and the Fox rivers
They can answer at their leisure, and il
the columns Of the Chronotype if they like
Our correspondent, x. Y. T., thinks fire
trnde acre would be no free trade at all bt