The Middlebury galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1848-1850, 1848-03-07
NUMBER 45.

Great Britain, to one dollars worth she has ts-
ken from US in its raw form. What .propor-
ton Of the price goods was made up of the
breadstuffs consumed by the labor employed in
producing the raw materials, and afterwards in
converting them into goods? Take ton of i
ron, or yard of silk, it was all labor-labor
from the ore to the anchor, and from the worm
and leatto the finished rib6on-all labor, And
what did this labor get2 1t got what Il cat
| breadstuffs-bread, and hardly enough Of that;
and this Is what T:e pay our money for when
we buy foreign goods. Taking this view of the
subject, Mr.. Brown, a distinguished British wri-.
ter, has lately said that, Great Britain exports
more agricultural produce than any other ma
ton IN the wOrld'-exported in the form of
goods. Now, he wished to inquire, that part
OF the value offoreign goods consisted in bread
stuffs; he believed one-half would e fair
calculation, but to prevent cavil say one-eighth.
And what follows ? 1t follows mathen atically.
that in 1886, under Mr. Walkers low tariff.
we imported from Great Britain, in the form of
goods, siIty-three dollars and eighty-tlree cents
worth of British breadstuffs to every cents
worth she took from us in its raw state. Here
are the facts; and Mr.. Walker, who is great at
figures, can make the calculation for himself.
In 1886, we imported eighty-six millions of dol
lars worth of British goods, and she took one I
thousand six hundred and eighty-four dollars
worth of our breadstufIs-that is five hundred
and ten dollars and siXty-cight cents worth Of
British goods to one cents worth of our bread
stufis Now assuming that one-eighth part of
the price of goods is made up ofthe breafstuffs
consumed by the labor employed in their man
ufacture anu II will amount, as stated to sixty
three dollars and eighty-:hree cents worth of
breadStuifs imported from Great Britain in 49,
&c, to one cent worth that she tcof from us :
and yet Mr.. w alker says, we must take more
British goods, otherwise she '-will have to paw
US specie for our breadStufis, and not having it
TO spare, she will not pay as much for our cot
tom What tinancicr-what statesman il
this whose report is proclaimed by his friends
to be "the greatest production ofthe age" He
,reduces duties ene-half to increase the. reve-
nue.. Ana how ? BY doubling our imports
of British goods, made up of British agriculture
al produce and British labor, to favor Ameri-
.caa farmers, mechanics, and workingmen-
''rhc toiling millions" No wonder his report
was printed by order of the British House of
Lords, Of which Mr. Walker speaks with so
much pride and eXultation. And the gentle
man from Illinois, (Mr. McClernand,) is in
ccStacies with the Report; and he too tells us
of the wonders the tariff Of 1916 has done
tor his constituents, and for the farmers and
grain-growers of the West free tra,le, low du--
ties and British goods, is the very thing for
them. Now, he wished to tell the gentleman
one thing, and he hoped he would take it down
and examine tit was this: that under the low
tariff in 1886, his constituents assuming that
they consume goods and export breadstuffs IN
proportion to the rest of the people of the u
ni;ed States purchased and consumed 1913, 900
worth Of British goods, containing $4,000
worth of breadstuils, being one-eighth oftheir
value, to every seven dollars worth of bread
stuffs Great Britain took from them; this re-
suit was produced by dividing the whole a.
mount Of imports of goods and exports of bread
stuffs by 2S0, the number Of Representative on
this floor. To show that these calculations
were correct, he would furnish the following
table, which he commended to the careful ex-
animation and consideration of the farmers and
grain-growers of the United States