The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-04-03

as this writer thinks, to their best interests.
Why should men SO long have taken five per
cent. when they might have had ten? Why
when they might have had low ones Why
should they SO long have continued to pay
northern jobbers, when they could SO we'll
transact the business themselves? Why
should they so long have employed northern
ships, when the South abounded in all the ma
terial required to enable them to construct ships
for themselves To these questions this arti-
Gle offers no reply. 1t tells us only what has
been in the past, and what ought to be in the
future; and yet its writer would perhaps be
one of the last who would withdraw his capital
from its secure investment in State stocks at
five per cent, to engage in trade that might
give him ten, and might give him nothing, and
that assuredly would give him nothing so long
as the policy Of the South should continue to
be adverse TO the adoption Of any measures cal
culated to enable il to maintain direct trade with
the world.
The only nations that maintain direct trade
with the world are those which finish the work
| Of production, SO as to enable them to supply
their customers without the Intervention of
third party; and in this they are precisely in the
condition Of individuals. The mere cotton
grower cannot maintain direct trade with the
CONSUMERS of cotton cloth. any more than the
mere paper-maker can maintain direct trade
with the readers Of newspapers. The paper
maker must employ middleman, and 50 must
the cotton planter Both must have middle
men; and this being the case, the nearer and the
more closely the interests OF the paper maker,
the printer, and the publisher, can be connected
together, the less the friction between the pro-
Queer of the raw material-the paper-and the
consumer of the manufactured article-the
newspaper-the cheaper will the latter be
produced. the larger will be the consumption,
and the larger will be the profits of all the par
ties concerned--as is invariably found to be the
case. The profits Of the paper maker increase
as he diminishes the number of middle
men that stand between him and the cen
sumers Of his paper, and they diminish as
the middlemen increase in number The more
direct his trade, the richer lie is seen TO gro,o.
The planter, too, requires middlemen; and it
would certainly seem to be to his interest to bring
that middleman as close to him as possible,
and thus, as far as practicable, to maintain di-
rect trade with the world. The policy of
England is, however, adverse TO this course of
action. She says, sit is not to your interest
to make coRmor cause with your neghbors;
some Of whom would gladly convert your cot
ton into cloth; while others would convert the
cloth into clothing; and third would send
abroad the cloth and clothing to be exchanged
directly with the producers Of teas, coffee, su-
gar, silk, paper, books, Sc. Continue all of
you producers Of cotton, and zoe will send our
ships 10 receive it-and zoe Will convert it into
cloth and clothing-and re will exchange it for
coffee, and sugar, and tea, and woolen cloth,
saving monopoly of the purchase Of cotton,
Wv will pay you for it what price we please;
and having monopoly Of the sale of the cloth
made from your cotton, we will charge your
customers and yearselves what price we please;
and the result will be, that instead Of your get
| ting one bale Of cloth for two of cotton you will
have one bale for FIVE, while the poor producers
of sugar, coffee and tea, will be placed in almost
! the same situation
| Singularly enough, the planter follows this
advice, and he pursues the course which makes
| 1t necessary for him TO send all his cotton TO
one market he pays high freights out,
while ships return to Charleston and New Or
leans in ballast; and then he receives his SUI
gar, his coffee, his tea, and his cloth and iron
via New York, subject to a thousand charges
that would be avoided if he would but deter
mine TO sell cloth instead of cotton WHY
does he not2 Because he cannot until he shall
determine to make common cause with such of
his neighbors as would be willing to take his
cotton and convert it into cloth, and his other
neighbors who would be willing to take the
cloth and convert it into sugar, and coffee, and
tea. and silk-thus establishing direct trade
with the world, instead Of being compelled to
maintain all trade through Manchester So
long as he shall be determined to maintain no
trade but through that town. how can he look
for direct trade2 The thing il an absurdity.
ADAM SMITH taught that the true place for
the workman who converts cotton into cloth was
TO be found In the cotton fields. where food and
cotton were both heap, and where tons Of ra,c
material could be compressed into hundred
~cights Of cloth, and thus cheaply carried to the
consumer of cloth, who could thus be enabled
to consume largely, enabling the producer Of
food and cotton TO be large customer to him.
His successors of the Manchester school teach
different theory Of trade, being precisely the
one that SMITH, the father Of free trade, mos,
emphatically denounced. They say the true
place for the workman who converts cotton into
cloth is in the lanes and alleys of Manchester,
where food and cotton are dear, and whence
cotton cloth must 90 TO the world burdened
with all the cost of transportation Of the raw
material from the plantation to us, and from us
TO ihen--the consequence of which must be tina,
they can be but poor customers to the planter,
who will be poor customer to him. The plan
ter believes him and them, and wonders that the
consumption of sotton does not keep pace with
its growth. lie believes that the indirect,