The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-05

the floor, and that therefore, the motion to post
pone could not be made without his consent. ID.
The CHAIRMAN so decided.
Mr. HUDSON said he did not yield the floor,
Mr.. COBB said, then the gentleman was enutled
TO Il, and would proceed with his remarks.
Mr.. MCKAY was undeIstsod 10 say, that he
made the motion, supposing that the gentleman from
Massachusetts MIR. HUDsoN would acquiesce in il.
80 The committee resumed the consideration Of the
oili making appropriations for rivers and harbors
And Mr., HUDSON took the as,r
When the committee last rose, the point of order
had been raised that II was ia order on this bill
10 90 into discussion on the tariff
The Chairman had decided that il ,eas in order
An appeal had been taken.
And the question now required " Shall the decis-
ION Of the Char stand as the Judgment Of the com
nittee'" and being taken, was decided the afhr-
native.
So the eeision Of the Chair was affirmed
Mr.; HUDSON accordingly proceeded with his
remarks
Mr.. HUDSON resumed the remarks in which
he had been broken off at a former day. The
point al which he had then arrived the capaoi-
" OF the English market TO consume the breadstufs
OF foreign nations They found, on looking into Of
heisl statements that for the last fifteen years there
had been brought iAto Great Britain. and consumed
each year, upon an average, 10000 900 bushels,
from oil parts Of the world. They also found that
WIS atnOuilt hhu nuCluhled from SScUUU DuShelS IN
one year. TO y, 800, 900 bushels fact highly inn
Porant, as showing the little dependence that could
be placed by US and by other nations on a market
thus huetusting. IL was also important to consider
that our surplus had varied as much as the de-
mand Of the English market. In 1886, 1897, and
1888, we had imported largely into our own country,
from Great Britain herself, almost half a million
bushels Of wheat per year. The English produc-
on, owing 10 improvements in agriculture, was gain
ing on the English consumption. lie referred TO
Dunmond, and another English writer, whs argue
that England viii, in process OF time, produce I'll
the grain required for her consumption; and To the
fact, that in 1897 and 1888, their production was ae
tualy so great To exceed human wants, and their
wheat was fed TO cattle, and used for purposes Of
disuillAtion.
In l54l, 1912, and ls43, the imports into Great
Britain were unusually large-ayeragng about
eighteen million bushels per year. But Of this
large Importation, what amount did the United
States supply or the ly-four millions Of bushels
imported during these three years he read from a
table showing the respective quota furnished by va
rious nations some Of which were Russia 1883
600 bushels; Denmark, 3099, 900 bushels; Prussia,
L. 900 900 bushels the British North American colo
Mes ,S54 900 bushels and the U. States 5000 900
bushels. Thus, for these three years Of large i'm
portAuon into Great Britain, Russia furnished near
| y as much as the United States; Denmark more;
and Prussia SIX times as much as the United States.
In fact for these three years, we supplied in direct
trade with Great Britain, only about per cent OF
her imports.
The English market Mr.. Fl. computed for a series
Of years 10 come at fifteen million bushels Of foreign
gram; and Judging from the past, we should supply
IN direct trade only about million and the Other
| fourteen millions would come from the continent oil
| Europe. Now, he wished TO institute the inquiry
whether the nations Of the north Of Europe could
supply the English market, or whether in case of q
modification ofthe EDglish corn. laws we could com.
/ mn hat narkef Iord Akardsan IN IL
ed a circular to the consus at most Of the marts oil
trade on the eastern continent, inquiring as to the
capacity Of those countries TO supply the English
| demands. Returns from twelve marts showed thai
those ports could ordinarily supply to Great Bsitair
| II, 779 900 bushels, being two or three million.
more than the average Of all the imports into Grea
Britain for six eight years in succession. Henc,
| II appeared that the British market could be sup
piled from the eastern continent independently o
| the United States.
| He next examined the financial ability of In,
countries on the continent to supply the market o
England; and by referring to the prices of whea
for IL years in succession at various ports prnci
pally in the north of Europe, he found that tn
average price Of wheat there 30 cents, with
for the same time the average price in the United
States had been 81 go Tor 25) cts. But calcuatiul
the differences freights, exchange and other adyan
tages and Disadvantages Of the United States com
pared with the continental nations for the supply
the English market, he arrived at a balance Of q
least 20 cents per bushel for the last or ffteer
years against US. We could not then, in the even
Of the repeal essential modification OF the Eng
fish eorn-laws, compete SUCCESSFULLY with the norS
of Europe in the English market
j In this computation he had been speaking of GU
direct trade with Great Britain But for the las
three years we had sent three times the quantit,
of grain to Canada, there to be manufactured int
-four and thence to find its way to England that ha,
been sent direct that country for the reason that
| M nj 1nfu pnltr had haan
sufs shipped from the British colonies. With thu
repeal Of the English corn-laws, he argued that w
should lose the benefit Of this indirect trade bcn.
brought into direct competition in it as we'll as il
our direct trade with the north Of Europe, which
the experience Of all past time had shown to be
most powerful competitor, and TO have supplied il
fact more than nne-tenths Of the English market
and which was sustained by the declarations o
of Lord Ashburton and other British statesmen il
Parliament that the supply of America, evel
through Canada, was a mere trife, and that nine
tenths of the supply of Great Britain was from thu
n north Of Europe.
But we would undoubtedly be told if the corn
laws Of England are repealed, or essentially modi
fed the English consumption will be greatly in
creased. This he admitted to a certain, though no
to a very considerable extent; but he urged the
with the reduction of the price of grain in Grea
Britain, would also come an equal or greater reduc
ton Of wages in that country.
Mr. II. produced many more statistics, and en-
tered INTO other arguments to show that the benefit
T promised us from the repeal Of the British corn
laws could never be realized and that even if tn,
liberal policy anticp ated were to be carried out il
that country-now that she had risen to her supe
rior emnence in agriculture, manufacture, ant
wealth-it would undoubtedly be for the result o
selfnterest which had ever been well-looked to b,
her, and would constitute no reason for like poll
cy on part, unless it was judged to be for our in
terest In proof that it would not be for our inter
est, he referred to the destruction of home-mar
kct, which he argued would be consequent, which
market was far more valuable-the State Of Massa
chusetts consuming annually more than three time
the amount of breadstuffs to Great Britain, ant
the New England States more than all our cxport
to foreign nations.
On this point, Mr.. II. yielded to an inquiry b,
, Mr.. BAYLy; and he proceeding in his remark
when his hour expired, and he resumed his seat.
Mr.. PETIT obtained the floor and after som,
conversation, proceeded to address the committee
He was very happy, Che said although the com
mittee might not be, that he had got the floor
This was, at least, speaking within bounds, the IF
tich time that he had tried for the floor this SEES
sion, and he had never obtained the floor TO make
II haA .,.,k IL