The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-03-26

| which the British and the American papers CON-
| ment on the resolutions Of Mr.. Labouchere, lately
| introduced into Parliament. The former have set
up the usual chime that the shipping interests are
| to be sacrificed to the manufacturing interests
while the latter raise great outcry against the
pretended liberalism of the misunderstanding that
England is iegisating for her own benefit, and that
the new policy is really protective Of British inte-
rests. To be sure, England legisates for her own
benefit; you'd you have her legslate for her in
jury? Does any one suppose that nations are ever
SO Quixotic to make laws on general principles
of abstract benevolence! Nations always, and
very wisely, too, legislate entirely for themselves
and for nobody else. The error of the proectionst
school of philosophers consists in their supposing
that the interests of one people are always damet
really and rreconcilaby opposed to the interests of
all others.
| American papers, however, even those opposed
to revision and modification of our own naviga-
ton laws willing enough that the British laws
should be radically reformed or altogether abol-
ished. They plainly enough that it will be for
the interest of Great Britain, fos the interest of
American ship-owners, and for the benefit of the
world generally, that the restrictions on foreign
vessels entering British ports should be entirely
removed But many of them vince when you talk
about applying the knife to our own navigation
statutes. 1t is well, say they, for the British Go
vernment to repeal the ancient and venerable
laws, which have long been regarded as the
| peculiar causes of England's naval greatness.
There 10, they assert with strange forgetfulness
of facts, comparatively little coasting trade be-
tween the ports of the British Empire. But it
would be evidently absurd, they conclude, for us
nj .I,,
coastng trade to the competition of British ships and
British sailors. 1t is argued that if we were to make
reciprocity treaty with Great Britain, whereby the
| ships of the two nations would be permitted to
enter the ports of the two countries on the same
footing, the terms of the contract would be I'M
equal we would open to England several thou
sands Of miles of coastwse trade, while she would
| only have a few hundreds to offer us. II we had
no other way Of answering this argument, we
might ask where are all the colonial ports of the
British Empire Have they been suddenly swal-
lowed up by the sea? Where is lndia-wlere is
Canada where is Australia But we go to the
root of the matter and say, that it is clearly for the
interest Of all the producers and consumers in the
United States, that goods should be carried from
one port to another at the cheapest possible rates.
If British ships can carry freight from New York
TO New Orleans cheaper than other vessels, why
let them do it. We will be gamers thereby, aud
not losers.
1t is idle to try to find economical arguments for
the maintenance of the navigation laws; these
laws can only be propped up by showing that they
are necessary for the naval defence of the country.
And how the idea ever got into the world, except
by accident, that protective statutes were necessary
for the creation Of naval power, are al loss TO
imagine. 1t has, however, been gravely asserted
for several generations, that navigation laws are
the only agents Of naval empire; and by force Of
reiteration the idea has attained general prevail
ence Its claim to right and reason is now founded
on prescription. Time makes the notion venerable,
though common sense shows it TO be false.
Competition is the best means for producing ex-
cellence. The larger the amount Of human intel
lect and human labor expended on any given OBJ
ject, the nearer will be the approach to perfection,
the more valuable will be the thing produced. If
you wish to have good ships and good sailors. you
have only to give the freest scope to competition.
The amount of maritime commerce determines the
demand for shipping and it would be far wiser to
attempt to increase our naval strength by extending
our commerce, than by offering bauntes and pro.
lection to shp-builders and ship-owners. In the
way that free competition leads to excellence,
restricted competition dminishes the probability
that good article will be produced. Now the nav
igation laws narrow down competition in ship
building and ship-sailing, and thereby tend to de-
crease rather than increase our naval power. We
want sailors to defend us in time of war, say the
advocates of protection and in order to have them
in our time of need we must favor them in time of
peace. But do we really benefit the shipping in
terests by these protective statutes 1t is only self
aid and self-reliance that produce power and
strength: you make good ships and good sailors by
teaching them to rely on their own merits for sup.
port and success.
So far, then, from the navigation laws being of
any use in adding to our naval strength, We con-
ceve that they absolutely diminish it, and prevent
US from reaching the pitch of maritime power we
may one day attain. Even if such statutes We're
necessary in earlier days, the time for them has
now passed. Our merchant marine is now une-
quaed for its safety and speed. Our ships are al
ready the best built, sailors the most expert and
our captains the most intelligent in the world.
They need no protecting hand to be stretched over
them; they want not the patronizing support of
government in order 10 collect their cargoes in
every port and stretch their sails on every sea- IT,
however, by repeating our navigation laws we can
give the most efficient protection to our shipping
interests-ihe protection of an enlarged market and
increased demand for their industry. Such aid is
better than all the assistance human laws and ma
onal statutes can afford for it is founded on the
natural law that the best carrier will do the most
busness-the cheapest and most efficient laborer
will get the most work.
PosT-oFFICE REGULATIoNs-Mr. Collamer has
issued notice to the public, and instructions to
Postmasters, saying that, hereafter, when letter
exceeds an ounce in weight, but does not exceed
two ounces, it will be rated with four charges OF
weight postage; when it exceeds two ounces, but
does not exceed three, it will be rated with six
charges, and on, there being single postage for
the first halfounce, double charge for the first
ounce, and two additional charges for each succeed
ing ounce, or fraction of ounce beyond the first