The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-08-04

census returns of 1910, estimates the persons en-
gagged In manufactures at 79l ,545. and their pro-
ductions ct 1896. $50 6l5. In that year the total
amount OF dutable imports retained in the coun.
try tor consumption was S44, 80 SOC or less than
one ninth Of the value of manufactures produced
at home. proportional estimate would give
less than S7,949 persons the additional number
necessary to produce the entire amount of dutia.
BILE imports. Allowing three Others to depend for
support upon each of these laborers. we should
nave as an extravagaut allowance, 35l .796 con
sumers. oupposing each to CONSUME S25 worth
OF 1000, the produce of agriculture, which is a
very exIravagant allowance for families consist
ing OF men, women and children. and the entire
amount consumed would be 1924 900 The
estimate for the raw material necessary for the
manufacture of all the cotton fabrics imported that
year from abroad was estimated by none above
$4,000 bales, which. at $40 a bale, would have
been about 50, ,000-making thus, in food and
cotton, sum less than 81 100000. Now the
tables show a loss of five cents pound on 776.-
2IS,S52 pounds cotton, the average annual export
from lS4o to lS45-thus making loss ON tina,
article alone of more than S3S 100000 They
also show loss on the average annual export of
flour tor the same years of 81 As per barrel ON ;,
I5o,426 barrels. and S2S 80 a hogshead on 1874
eco h"gsheads OF tobacco--makng in all S5.45l
729 upon the articles of flour and tobacco which
were exported; thus showing a loss of more than
S43,OOOO0O upon the mere exports of cottnn, flour
and tobacco. without considering the loss upon
the large amount consumed at home. But ap
Peas have been made the selfish feelings of the
graln-growing States, upon the ground that they
at least were benefited as they did not export $"
largely as the planters. by any law which would
Increase the home consumption of their pr0vi
sions. Nothing could he more ialacious than such
pretext. The capital and labor required 10 pro
duce given value In cotton, tobacco and rice
are both far greater than would be required for
the production of the same value in manufactures.
Our exports. exclusive of the amount of fureion
merchandise re- exported, will be increased about
Sl4,OOO,O0O annually by the proposed reduction
of the Tariff of 1912. according to the estimate of
the Secretary of the Treasury. The tables com.
piled by Mr.. Lewis, 10 which have before re-
ferred, show that the proportion of manu- featuring
production was as $500 4 to each person engaged
In that species of labor, whilst the proportion of
agricultural production TO labor was as S2l37I
to each person engaged. The proportion of CAPT
tai employed TO produce given value in agricul-
ture is as 500 to $50 % of Production, willis,
in manufactures it is as 500 to SI47 sc, accord
ing to the same table Upon the estimate here
given, STA ,OOO.OOO of manufacturing production
would employ $4,000 persons, whilst the same
amount produced by agriculture would employ
65.42O persons. The capital employed by this
amount of agricultural production would be. ac-
cording TO this estimate, about % 900, OOO whilst
n
capital of about S9.500,0OO. This estimate. too.
throws out Of consideration the value of the land
engaged IN production, which ought to be estimat
ed, and would increase still further the amount
of capital required for this value in agricultural
production | know that tables taken from the
census returns cannot be relied upon for entire &C
curacv, but they may be used for an approxima-
tion close enough for sound general results But
the same proposition may be demonstrated in an
other We all know at ha = -;
tai are far greater, and the number of laborers EN-
ployed fur given value in production are fewer
IN manufactures IN this country than in agricul-
ture. This is so well known that need not re-
fer to documentary evidence to prove it, Now,
if this be so, it is evident that Sl4 900 900 pro-
duced in cotton, tobacco and rice would divert far
more capital and labor from the production of
other agricultural staples than the same value
produced in manufactures. More than twice the
number of persons. and nearly three times as much
capital, would be diverted in the former than in
the latter But for the interference of res
trictive legislation. should give desirable
employment TO many more persons, and facilitate
the improvement of the old lands. and the settle.
ment of the new-a consideration which is ofyast
importance 10 the new States.
But have been treating this subject sir as If
the provision growing States were not Immediate
1y interested IN the export trade of the country
when the reverse is the fact. They are already
exporting provisions largely and the change in the
British commercial policy opens to them vast
prospect for the future. | know it is alleged that
the repeal of the English corn laws can be of no
service TO MS. Formerly it was urged that we
ought to lay restrictive duties upon their manu-
features in retaliation for their corn laws; but now
we are informed that what were called upon
to revenge was no injury. The admission OF In
dian corn free Of duty, the low duties upon prov-
sions of all sorts, including wheat. must open a
new and great demand for our agricultural pro-
ducts, if we act wisely ourselves. The question
has been argued TO he determined by the
relative cheapness and quantities of grain in this
country, and in the north of Europe and about the
Black sea. On the one side it has been urged
that the countries around the Baltic and the Black
Sea can furnish more than will be wanted for
British consumption, and at cheaper rates than we
afford it; on the other, attempts have been
made to show the inability of those countries tn
furnish the requisite supply. | have no doubt
myself. Mr.. Chairman. of the capacity of either
to furnish the grain necessary for British
consumption, provided that English manufactures
taken in return for 1t. Increase the demand
elevate the profits of producing grain and either
this country the regions around The Baltic and
the Black Sea, produce a surplus which would
more than satisfy the wants Of British coneump-
ton. The question as To- which country shall fur
nish it will depend upon combination of cheap.
ness Of production and facility for receiving the
manufactures of Great Britain in return Sup
pose that one country could place a bushe Of
wheat at Liverpool for fifty cents and another
could send it there for not less than dollar bnt
that the country furnishing the cheap wheat pro
hibited British manufactures, whilst the other re-
ceived them at moderate duties-can anv man
doubt as to the country from which her snpplies
of grain would be derived2 She would have mn
capacity 10 buy the wheat at fifty cents if She
could sell nothing IN return but she could and
wonld buy from that which furnished wheat At one