The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-07-18

all, and obeys the universal law that consump-
ton and production are equal. That section of
il which is not permitted TO consume its pro-
ducts must cease TO produce them, and those
who infiict or tolerate the wrong must bear the
penalty. The policy of protecting domestic
manufacture is thus shown to be a law of agri
cultural improvement, the sole security against
agricultural deterioration.
We have said above that the expectation Of
agricultural products in their crude state not
only deprives the farmer without remuneration
of what he has to purchase back again, but that
il involves the necessity of his paying for car
rying it away. This follows inevitably from a
principle which, we apprehend, the farmerso of
the United States do practically understand;
they see it exemplifed every day in the open
ing of every new railroad canal, plank road,
or other improvement in the machinery of trans
portati0n. All that is wanted is to generalze
their experience, and express it in a distinct for
mula or rule. The experience is this--that
every thing which diminishes to the farmer the
cost of carrying his wheat, or corn, or pork, cot
ton, &c, to its market, adds the amount saved
where it is produced. We remember being
struck last summer with two instances in diff
ierent districts of the State of Illinois, in both
Of which the price of the great staple, corn,
was instantaneously raised from fifteen to TWEEN
y-tive cents bushel, in the one case by the
opening of a new railroad, in the other by the
extension of canal. 1t is plain that it must
always be so; that the price of a commodity in
any given market must be regulated by the cost
of that which is got there under the most favor
able circumstances-that which pays no trans
portation or the least; all that which is COM
PEELED to go there from greater distances, or,
what is precisely equivalent, by more costly
modes of conveyances, must itself pay the in
creased cost of transit, and whenever that is di-
minished and just as it is diminished, will its
value rise at the place of production. But there
is no region in which food is not raised IN the
immediate vicinity, and food can consequently
be carried nowhere where it does not find its
price regulated by that which has paid no freight
OF merely nominal freight OF course the whole
cost Of its transportation is deduction from
what would otherwise be its value at the place
where it grew.
We have said this truth is practically admit
ted That ii is is in the fact that il is ia
miliarly appealed to, and that by men profess
ing the free-trade philosophy. For example, at a
recent meeting in Baltimore for the purpose OF
promoting subscriptions to a link in the railroad
chain connecting that city with Memphis, Il
gentleman from Tennessee, Of highly respect
able character belonging to the Opposition par
ty, and a follower, as we understand, of Mr.
Secretary WALKER in his economical theories,
said:
Tennessee produces 10 900 900 bushels of wheat
Deducting half for consumption, would leave
$500, 900 bushels for export. The highest average
price in Tennessee, he said, was fifty cents. The
total value of the which might be exported
would be S3,25O, 900. If brought to the Atlantic
slope, it would pay railroad charges and yield
eighty cents per bushel, aggregate of
s5,20O ,00o instead of s $50 900; and increased
profit TO the wheat growers of Tennessee of
81 100000.
"Shc produces, he said, a. DOC, 900 bushels of In
dian corn OF this sum, between tvo and thee
millions Of bushels are exported principally TO
New Orleans, over river transit of 200 or
| |, 500 mes After deducting freight. insurance
| commission and damage, it yields a very poor
profit to the producer. To deduc. one half for con
sumption would leave for export 30 900 900 Of bush
els. II is worth in Tennessee from TO- Is, To 20
cents per bushel II would bear the cost of freight
10 the Atlantic cities, and yield IS cents. Here
would be a gain to tho corn-growers in Tennes-
the highest market price at home Of
| S4,S0 900"
But we have the high authority of Mr.
McCULLocH, the most distinguished of the
| living British economists, for the same truth
That gentleman, last winter, added to a new
edition of his Commercial Dictionary Sup
| plement, which Is devoted 10 an examination
of Mr.. MEREDrrH's Treasury Report. Speak
ing of a restoration of the duties on corn, by
way of retaliation in case Of the ratification Of
Mr.. MEREDIrH's views by Congress, he says,
owe may supply ourselves with corn in fifty
other places besides the Union, and hence the
| duty on il would fall entirely on the United
States grower and producer, and not on the
| English consumer" 1t is impossible, if we
have TO pay the duties, that we can escape
paying the freight. There is no mode of es-
tablishing distinction between them. This
has been felt by the American farmers, and
the only object of citing Mr.. McCULLocH
was TO show, that the idea entertained by him
is not merely one pervading the minds Of
practical men, but implicitly avowed by the
learned doctors who soar to the loftiest heights,
and dive to the profoundest depths, of the
oretical, systematic economy. II is worth while
to note in passing the admission Mr.. McCUL-
LocH makes, which he and his els atlantic
followers nevertheless continually contradict
in their reasonings, that an import duty is paid
entirely by the producer, and not by the con-
sumner, in certain cases. They always quietly
assume, in arguing against protection, that no
such case exists.
But TO return: it is evident that in the same
proportion in which the cost of transportation is
deduction from the value of the products, in
the same is it drawback upon the value of the
| land itself Thus we arrive at the law in ITS
generalized form, as expressed by Mr.. Carey,