The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-07-31

NEW YoRK. JnlY 2e-5,

NEW YORK. July 29-5, p. IN.
The effort recently made in the French Assembly 70 do
away with the monarchca system OF protection met, Of
course with opposition from those who repIesent the protect
tive interests opposed the welfare OF he people large
Among these M, Theirs conspie nous He made
speech which, without containing anything pos.
ssssing much cearness OF demonstration nevertheless
regarded a brilliant effort Persons Of practical minds
WILL however find il difficult 10 reconcile the
merge them into continuous argument Alter show.
ing to how great is protected under the
pesentaw OF France the honorab BILE gentleman remarked
"Bu, agriculture could only be benefited by selling s corn
dear. The possessors OF land IN England aud In
rich GLASS; being ia fact The artsoeacy and able 10
suyporf, certain sren the change toheh had been ia
landowners, each with small parcel OF ground belonging
himself and the whole constituting the arisocacy
support The sacrifices consented England BY her po,os
aristoeraey la England al present WAS loohd necessary
but as she was a maritime power up to a GER
extent, for that immense necessity OF mPoration"
The first proposition is true, Wis that agriculture must
sell its corn dear"s But 'deaness" relative quality
Now he says that the arocrscy OF England submitted
Sacrifices conserving slaon which produce the
present prices, and that the producers OF France
able submit such sacrifices He then England inn
ports large quantity of corn That is true and why
deaver in free trade England than in pro-
,ected France. Why does any nation import article
foreign production Because the merchants who effect
the importation buy cheap abroad, and sell it deaer
home. In Isis England imported -four as follows
From France lOl2s
9 United States l,3S3,2Si
&C other countries IS0,305
srs. Total imports of -four 3,O26 454
The English andholders submit the " sacrifice" of
selling their price higher than the poor land
holders OF France by the profits of dealers, added the
of transportation The English farmer gets the spot
without price for grain which the French farmer
get only at great outlay OF money and transportation
Yet M. Theirs alleges that the Englishman submits a
..,h ol thai nbYna, ,,,lIp AL
Why is it that the removal oduy compa rayely benefits
the English armerl Because The general reduction in all
protection enables The worker get food and clothing
his labor, and there is consequently demand fo
necesares. England in 1874 imported less than three mil
lion bushels corn and that sufficient with her ow
supplies feed her people In the last she has
imported 40 900 900 bushels per annum and that amount
requisite the pon of the
people.
Again in the of -four free trade England drew
third ofher supplies from France, where highly
protected and twohrds from the United States where the
trade is entirely free. In free,trade Eugand -four uniform
y dearer than either in protected France free America
The of this is very simple In England the cost OF
the home article is kept high level by the high rents
and incidental expenses of lands from which idle
ocacy draw S25 $50 per acre, through the industry OF
the occupers. In the United States and in France the oc
cupers They pay rent and although
in the latter country mortgages and taxes swell the Of
production above that of the United States of land is
added In the United States the freshness of
and the of improved machines diminish the cost Of
production while increased of lie sen
of the articles in the market la France republ
canism requires that industry should be protec by d
mirhshng its burden. The monarchists like M. THEIRS
and the potectioni.ts, have thought of renting
dollar but play off the quackery of protection in
order make continued taxation pastable
Ii is when the people of county OF the
produce OF their own labor that their prosperity greater
Take in the year 1863 The quantity cotton
sumed the United reported at 9s 1853 bales
which, at 400 lbs gives 23 307 600 lbs very nearly the
quantity consumed in Great Britt in 1892 Under the pro
tectve system the usual estimate OF three yards
pound, the produce in the countries with the quantity
exported, Will stand thus
rounds Equal 10 Yards
consumed. yards. ported
England, 1889, a59,4Ia,4e3 77s,aT,5s9 ess ols sos
United States, 1885, a59, 7l7922soO gisss4so
The number ofyards exported from the United States
not given officially but the value in 1850 was 81 IA 900
which, alto yards TO the dollar gives the number Of yards
in the table from which, II we deduct the yards Of
manufacture consumed, there remains nothing So that
while England exported 80 per Of her prod the
United States consumed the ,oaoie Of equal quantity
essiy tipp NJ i,