The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-28

mutual advantages, and diuse increase OF wealth
State.
THAT unfortunately policy the very reverse Of
his has been, and IT, moro or less adopted and act
cd upon by the government OF this and every other
country, each trying 10 exclude the productions Of
other countries, with the spoeious and wsll-moant
design OF encouraging It's own productions thus in
nicung on the bulk Of It's subjects, who arc con-
sumers, the necessity Of submitting to privatons in
the quantity or quality of commodities, and thus
rendering, what ought to be the source Of mutual
benefit and OF harmony among States, a constantly
recurring occasion Of jealousy and hostility.
| That the prevailing prejadices in favor Of the
protective or restrictive system may be traced TO the
erroneous supposltion that every importation Of for
eign commodities occasions a dimiDution or dis
coursgement OF our own productions 10 the same
extent whereas IL may be clearly shown that al
though the particular description of production
| which could not stand against unrestrained foreign
competition would be discouraged, yet, i'm.
portaton could be continued for any length Of time
without corresponding exportation direct or indi-
rect, there would be an encouragement for the pur-
pose Of that expectation, OF some other production
70 which our situation might be better suited,
thus afording at least an equal, and probably
greater, and certainly more beneficial, employment
| to our own capital and labor.
THAT Of the numerous protective and prohibit
DRY duties OF our commercial code, il may he
proved that while all operate as a very heavy
tax on the community at large very few are Of any
ultimate benefit to the classes in whose favor they
were originally instituted, and none TO the extent Of
the loss occasioned by them TO other classes.
THAT among the other evils Of the restrictive or
protective system, not the least is that the artificial
protection Of one branch of industry or source of
production against foreign composition is set up as
ground ofclaim by other branches for similar pro-
lection; SO that, il the reasoning upon which re-
srictyo prohibitory regulations founded were
followed out consistently, IL would not stop short
Of excluding us from all foreign commerce whatso-
ever. And the same train of argument which, with
should exclude US from foreign trade, might be
brought forward TO justify the rc-enactmsnt Of re-
srictons upon the interchange Of productions (un-
connected with public revenue) among the kingdoms
composing the union. or among the counties Of the
| same kingdom.
srictive system, at this time, Ia peculiarly called
for, as II may, In the opinion Of the petitioners lead
| TO q strong presumption that the distress which
so generally prevails 10 consi terably aggravated by
that system, and that some relief may be obtained
by the earliest practicable removal Of such Of the
restraints AZ may be shown 10 be most injurious TO
the capital and industry Of the community, and to
DC attended with no compromising benefit to the pub
lie revenue
THAT although, as a matter Of mere diplomacy,
1t may sometimes answer to hold out the removal
Of particular prohibitions, or high duties as depend
ing upon corresponding concessions by other states
in our favor, it does not follow that should main
tain restrictions in cases where the desired
cessions on their part cannot be obtained. Our
strictions would not be the less preudicial TO our
own capital and industry, because other govern
ments persisted in preserving impoltic regulations
"That, upon the whole, the most liberal would
prove TO be the most polite course on such occa-
sions.
"That in thus declaring, as your petitioners do,
their conviction OF the imPocy and injustice Of the
/ --lI
relaxation Of it, they have in view only such parts
oft as not connected, or only subordinately
90, with the public revenue. As long the
sity for the present amount Of revenue subsists,
your petitioners cannot expect important
branch of it as the customs to be given up nor to
be materially diminished, unless some substitute
less Objectionable, be suggested But it ia against
every restrictive regulation Of trade not essential
the revenue-against all duties merely protective
from foreign competition-and against the excess
Of such duties as are partly purpose Of rev.
cnue, and partly for that of protection,- the
prayer Of the present petit is respectfully submit
ted to the wisdom of Parliament
| "Your petitioners therefore humbly pray, that
| your honorable house will be pleased to take the
subject into consideration, and to adopt such meas
may be calculated TO give greater freedom to
foreign commerce, and thereby to increase the re-
sources of the State" -"
Thus you will perceive that, although the contest
| has been Of long duration, the progress has been
onward in the adoption Of free-trade principles by
England, and at the present time there are ndica-
tons that these principles will soon DO competsy
triumphant. At period have the commercial
and manufacturing interests been morn successful
than at this present time of comparative freedom Of
trade in that country, and of high tariffs among
other nations. --.t-
Spain is high-tariff country, but who can point
to the prosperity of SPAIN azl-.
| Let the friends Of just commercial laws in this
country be encouraged to perscverc IN their endea-
vors. -
Mr.. Lawrence mentions the increased amount OF
imports consequent upon reduced duties-tha is, the
increased quantity of clothing and other neccssaries
and comforts Of life which the people of the United
States will receive under low tariff This, to a
certain extent, is doubtless correct. He then asserts
that the exports not likely to increase with the
imports. This Is an entire JaLlaey. Exports will
proof of this, against Mr.. Lawrence's unsupported
| assertion, refer to the arguments Of Adam Smith,
| Mill, McCullock, or Of any of those writers who
have devoted their lives to the study and elucidaon
Of the laws of trade. Specie ,ou be exported to
any erteni unless the banks improperly extend their
liabilities.
Cotton-as Mr.. Lawrence mentions free Of
duty, and tobacco probably pays twelve hundred
per cent? but this latter duty is entirely for
enue, and is in no way protective, or aimed at the
United States; On the contrary, the growth Of to.
bacco is forbidden in Great Britain, in some part OF
which Qreland) it was formerly grown to ad-
vantage. The use Of it 10 also encouraged by an
allowance made by law to paupers and to the
navy. H. .... .
The reply of a Missouri farmer to my question
if he thought tho reduction Of duty in England or
tobacco would prove Of any benefit to his State, II
the best to all attempts to prejudice planters
against foreign nations. Said he: ~ don't knew il
il would. Ny land is divided about one-thrd each
for tobacco, hemp, and corn, wheat, &c. This
find to be the best plan; for If one crop fails have
the others TO fall back upon. Now If the duty or
tobacco was taken off, suppose the article would
advance, and it would be more profitable for me te
give up the hemp and the corn, and put all my LAND
into tobacco; but all my neighbors would do tn.
same tho planters in Kentucky and Virginia would
also do it, and in very little time tobacco would b,
overdone, and down it would fall to the present
price, and perhaps lower" III take IT," said he "tha
all these things eventually governed by the cost
production"
i Now this farmer had not probably read many
books upon the subject of trade, but he evidently
knew as much Of the matter those who deem free