Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1846-04-11


only 7,764 $50 bushels, being sxywo per cent Ca
NADIA than to England Or if take the last three years.
have sent into Canada $685. GOT bushels and into Eng
land 1907 59S bushels being than three times much
into Canada into England Here (which spec
ulations bend--which no theories annul.
The questions which present themselves for cons
deraion these Why have little to England
direct And why much to England through Canada The
to each of these questions is obvious la direct
trade in competition with the north of Europe,
and the low price of labor enables them underse the
English market This the reason and the only satisfactory
reason, why direct trade with England has been small
j And che why have sent much to England
through Canada is equally obvious Our wheat which goes
into Canada is after being manufactured into flour, admitted
into Great Britain the colonial duty, which much less
than her duty wheat flour direct from this country
have examined the English tables Of actual duties paid during
each week of 1913, and find the difference between
the duty actually paid colonial and foreign wheat to be
fourteen shings the quarter or cents the bushe
All the wheat therefore, which send through Canada,
admitted into the English market favorable by
thrythree bushe than the wheat which send d
rect From this, however, must take the Canadian duty
OF the OF eight cents bushe which reduces the
suE to twenty-five cents.
i Now this advantage Of twenty-five cents per bushe this
monopoly Of the colonial trade which enjoy and of which
north ofEurope deprived what enables to send
there than wothds OF export of wheat to Great Britain
But repeal the laws Of England and deprived Of
this monopoly and brought directly into competition with
great wheatgowing countries the Baltic where the agr
cultural aboers be obtained for from eight pence sh
ling day. and board themselves Are the Independent yeo
of the West prepared yield all the benefits of the
Canada trade and thus lose two-thds of the which
they enjoy Are they willing to be brought into
petition with the trodden Poles and se of Russia and
be compelled to labor for fifteen twenty cents per day
Would devotion party, the satisfaction of following out
the deusive theory of free trade reconcile them to condition
degraded II they possess the Independent spirit of free
mcn-if they Amecans-they will spurn such idea.
But Mr. Secretary Walker, whose devotion to British in
teress has been compmened in that country y the pubca
ton of his report would have understand that the opening
the British ports grain would be great blessing
this country But on principle does he found his theory
What facts does he adduce to sustain his position None
whatever He asks us to believe, but furnishes with no
evidence to sustain faith In this respect he deals less
fairly with than Lord Ashburton himself AT meeting
Winchester January 10, 1885, Lord Ashburton, when speak
ing this very subject said that protecon had existed
England from the days Of the Pantagenets whilst the whole
line of country opposite the contnent-Fance, Bel
GUM, Holland and Prussandeed almost every country in
the wod-monarchia Europe well republican America
had its protective laws and regulations !" It clear
that in the event of Of difficulties her (Amer
easy first step would be again to shut her ports against
in which case the supply from America would undoubtedly
fail But the supply must not be expected from america
and could not have better proof Of this than the fact that
at MsmOmen american could come here from Canada
at duty of four sAings; and get If the returns
ained ii oud be found that -tets of the foreign
in England ,oas from the Baltic, though The duty the
corn from its shores fifteen shngs quarter. This
entirely owing to heow price Of labor in the north of
| Europe"
Here Lord Ashburton, frank than the American Sec
rotary, admits that the United States would not derive any
benefit from the proposed change in the laws Speaking
this subject in Parliament the goth of January, Lord
Ashburon said The British farmer must not have his
hands tied behind him. Did he the foreigner equal
terms The farmer the shores of the Baltic had his labor
at six pence day compete with the farmer Of this country
England, with his labor shilngs day. II required
skill in political economy to discover that these two parties
did not meet equal terms"
These remarks in Parliament would apply with additional
force in Congress If the British farmer, whose labor costs
him shilngs day, cannot compete with the farmer on
the Baltic whose labor costs him pence how the far
in the United States, whose labor is worth four shngs
day, compete with the cheap labor of the Baltic Lord
Ashburton the people of England of their DANGER but
the advocate of British interests this country would lead
blndy into the very jaws of this ruinous competition
But sir this is not all The very policy which would de-
sroy the important branch of wheat trade, viz that
through Canada would at the time, greatly impair our
market at home. The best and the market for the
wheat grower found in the manufacturing districts our
country This home market at hand is not disturbed
by runous foreign competition is not subject that fucua
ton which has characterized the British Market and
in fact the principal market for breadstuf With our
present protective policy, this market constantly increasing
Sir Robert Peel has justly said that the and the de-
mand and the prices of labor and all commodities seemed TO
depend upon the general prosperity Of the country than
upon any particular legislation Our present policy tends TO
produce that general prosperity, and demand for
the agricultural products Of the United States The demand
for whean this country constantly increasing Thousands
who ten years ago, made rye and Indian their principal
breadsuf now consume large quantity OF wheat. The
much wheat the growth of other States, send Eng
land direct and the New England States than en-
tire export to all foreign countries.
Lest this position should be thought extrayagant let me
present. in brief may of the facts on
which this calculation is based The present population of
Massachusetts, may safely be estimated $4,000 More
than half Of entire population engaged in other call
ngs than agriculture and to those thus employed one
barrel Of -four, five bushels Of wheat per head This es
cannot be considered extravagsn Those engaged d.
recty indirectly in manufactures and the mechanic arts
trade and in all its varieties in navigation in all its
forms, in the fisheries Of all kinds and those employed the
learned professions and eaches-hese with their families
and Dependents would constitute at least 400 900 of
puaton and would barrel Of flour per head The
other 395, 600 employed in agriculture may be assumed to
half barrel per head, which will give 1877, 900
Understanding total Of 6l7, 900 barrels Of -four Flour
is also used in considerable quantities in manufactures
There is used in Lowell alone, for starch and sizing,
least 1000 barrels annually which may be considered
one-fourh Of the consumed in the State for like
purposes. The quantity thus consumed when added to
that used breadsu would make the entire con-sump
ton $685. 600 barrels 900 bushels This estimate
is fully sustained by the imports into the State. There
brought into Boston, in s45 $780, 1873 barrels Of flour
and although onebaf Of this may have been reshpped
Maine and New Hampshire, the -four brought into
Salem, New Bedford Fall River and other smaller ports and
by the several railroads, viii make up the deficiency The
railroad from Albany Boston in 1914 distributed within the
interior Of the State, of -four brought from Albany,
barrels. There also brought into Boston, from other
States ls45 1871 4O6 bushels Of Indian corn 54s $50
bushels Of oats 1874 bushels Of rye and 65 $50 bushels Of
shorts Nearly the whole of this consumed in the State
and large quantities Of the kinds Of grain brought
into the State at other points.