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

This reduced to our currency would amount to 81
bushel delivered in England And in ls43 there a still
vered in England without duty at 81 cents, and from the
Black Sea at rs or so cents per bushea price much less
than wheat could be purchased at in ports
This appears to me- just and fair view Of the sub
ect But may be said that have proved too much And
the argument be sound cannot send any grain to Great
Britain. But every practical knows that between
great commercial nations, article will be exported from
to the other, when the prices the two countries
to forbid The wheat that have sent direct to Great B
tain is considerable extent the result accidental
merchant is indebted abroad and send forth
thing to discharge his debt and being able the de
mand in specie, he sends forward quantity of four Or
vessel going without full cargo, and will take grain
for trhe Or, Spectator has large amount Of flour
hand bought perhaps months, and obliged send
it out at sacrifice Our grain goes England mainly in the
shape of flour, by which saving Of 10 Is per cent
the export Of wheat is realized. These the causes
than any thing else which enable supply the English
market to the small do Ask merchants
who have had experience in this trade and they will general
y tell you that it is precaous business, and in which
much more has been lost than made
But gentlemen suppose that the repeal of the
laws will give impulse 10 this trade. But how is this
On what principle demand, do they base their calculations
If these laws modified repealed will be done by
general law applicable alike TO all nations The present law
imposes duty upon wheat from the United States
than upon wheat from the Baltic Suppose those duties be
reduced oneha annuled entirely the north Of Europe
viii enjoy all the advantages of these changes well
wheat CROP and the disease among the potatoes enable
the present time send forth unusual quantity But is
unsafe to from single year. In 1897, have
already imported 1000 900 bushels of wheat into
the United States and to from that year,
should be compelled admit that could our
breadstuf. If would correctly subjects
such this must take succession of years into the
counts and il we do this, SHALL think perceive
that modification Of the English laws would not bene
al at all.
We have bad practical illustration Of this principle. As
have before said, the modification Of the English laws
in 1912 did not increase the demand for grain in Great
Britain the contrary, in the first entire year after the
duction the importation into Great Britain fell off than
one-half And how il with export that market
The reduction in 1912 about equal to the whole Of the
present duty and Sir Robert Peel does not propose to take
off all the duty present If the proposed reduction is
operate much in favor may expect to find that the
greater reduction in 842 proved great blessing the United
States. And how was il with that modification
will tell you, Mr.. Chairman The reduction took place
in April 1912, and falling the midst Of the commercial
year. have Of determining its effect upon
ports for that year will therefore, throw that year out Of
the account and take the two years preceding and the
succeeding 1872 In the two preceding, viz 1910 and
exported to Great Britain average Of $780, 900 bushels
year, but in the two succeeding viz ls43 and 1884, we
exported only average of 1914 500 bushels year But
sir, as wish to do perfect justice the subject readily adj
mt that by change in commercial year, the year s43
consisted Of only nine month WISH therefore, add to
another quarter, make Of the usual length But
we add onehird to the imports Of that year. to make
up four quarters twelve months shall have then
an average for the two years Of only 476700 bushels
year. which is in fact less than oneh Of the
port of the two years preceding the modification of the En-
gish corn laws superficial enough ascrbe this
falling off Of export of wheat the reduction of the
British duties but the before shows nconestaby that
our wheat trade with England governed by laws eff
Gent controlling than any rate Of duty Is not
them perfectly peposerous TO maintain that the partial reuc
ton or prospective repeal Of the British duty upon wheat will
OF necessity enable send Of breadstu to that
kingdoml
But SIR though no intelligent gentleman can, think, see
any just for believing that shall gain materially in
the direct trade must be perfectly obvious that shall lose
in indirect trade with Great Britain Our best and in fact