The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-06-28

DrlSlSn Tree UaOe--SnOulO Degln 10 manlteSi
their own confidence in the truth of their doe
trines by placing before their readers all the
facts, and thus enabling them to Judge of the
correctness of their own differences. That how
ever, they never dot being their rule TO pick
out just such suit their purpose, while re-
jecting all that do MOTTO present one side
the other of any question, as happens TO answer
at the moment-and never to open their col
umnS to discussion on the other side To
maintain free trade, as they call it, in cloth,
cotton, and iron they find it Indispensable to
prevent the existence of anything approaching
to freedom in the commerce of ideas.
Had our contemporary had any strong desire
that his readers should understand the question
in regard to which he undertook to enlighten
Them he would we think, have laid before them
the manner in which the Protective system
operated upon both our farmers and our manu- {
facturers and then would have done the same
by the British system; thus he would have eEs
bled them to compare the advantage or disaf
vantage which the nation at large derives fire.
both That, however, would certainly not b
suited his purpose, and therefore he has sele
such portions OF our community as might
haps, in their ignorance of the true facts erd
case, be led to feel themselves aggrieved, ande
has presented to one the advantages OF Free
Trade and to the other the disadvantages Of Pro-
tection throwing altogether out of view the ques-
tion of tho advantage to the farmer derived from
the Russian system, and the loss to the manu-
facturer from the British one, and thus making
q politicoeconomical whole about complete
as the musical one that might result from the
| combination of alternate verses Of God Save the
| Queen and Yankee Doodle.
! There is, as we think, better way of treating
such subjects. This is to be found in examining
question in all its lights aud thus enabling
the reader of journal to form opinions for him
self. fiji is really true that our farmers profit
! by the system that Britain has established and
/ is aboring to extend, then the more perfectly
the facts are placed before the world, the more
will its farmers be satisfied that both principle
/ and interest should lead them to the advocacy
/ Of British Free Trade. Truth can lose nothing
/ By the most thorough discussion, but ialsehoOd
may and to the knowledge that the latter is
the case is probably due the fact that our Free
Traders present invariably but half the facts, and
| even these generally mis-stated, and then close
the door against all investigation. In saving
this, we have no desire to charge upon the Era
any intention to deceive its readers in the man
ner usually practiced by the Journal Of Com
mercs, however complete may be the deception
produced by its mode Of operation. On the
contrary, We hope to see him prove by his
present action that he is an honest seeker after
truth.
The object of Great Britain in repeating the
Corn Laws was to cheaper food. What our
farmers had to desire was, that food might not
be cheap; and if Great Britain succeeded IN
accomplishing her object, they were quite
likely to profit by her action. But it will be
said it gave them market they had before not
enjoyed. On the contrary, it deprived them of
market of which they before had possession,
and thus greatly injured them. The market of
England was worthless when that country had
L, l. l..
were short and when that proved to be the
case, they possessed advantages for supplying
IL, such as icere enjoyed by no other people IA
the ,oOrl3. They had fast ships, canals, rail
roads, and their own consumption 50 large
that the slightest economy at home enabled
them to meet a large demand abroad. As n
consequence of this, they profted largely by
the sliding scale which forbade that the people
of Poland and Russia should lay themselves out
for the supply of the market of England. If the
system of the latter tended to enhance the price
of food, they sOere the only foreign people pos
sessing tie means to enable them 10 profit By a.
The repeal of the Corn Laws deprived them
of this advantage; and such was in part its OBJ
ject. If Russia, Poland, Egypt, and other coun-
tries, could be induced to grow grain regularly
for England, the effect would, as the people Of
that country were assured be to establish a
uniformly low price for food of all descriptions,
and this precisely what our farmers did not
desire under any system. The market of Eng
land must, as we have always said, be valueless
when her own crops are large, but the effect of
the new scheme must be TO render it valueless
when the crop of any part Of Europe was
large-and such precisely has been the result.
The average price of flour in this city in the
four years prior to the war-say 1850 to 1853,
both inclusive, as shown by table recently
laid before our readers-was less than five dol
lars a barrel and in the two last Of those years
it was but $4.68 and this, notwithstanding tina
demand that had arisen for the supply of Cali
fornia, and Notwithstanding the increase in the
supply of gold. The price in 1853 was but
1886, or less than it had been at any time for
twenty years, and yet our farmers had then
been for seven years in the full enjoyment Of
the great boon offeredt to them by Sir Robert
Peel as an inducement to repeal the tariff of
1912. 1t was boon similar to that which
would be conferred upon a high-mettled racer,
in yoking him in a wagon with drudge, or
upon an enlightened and intelligent merchant,
in requiring him to be governed by, and To
share his profits with, his Irish porter Never
theless the bait took, and in return for being
deprived of all the real advantage that could DO
derived from the British market, our farmers
we're also relieved of the protection they were
enjoying at home, the Importance of which has
since been clearly proved by the incessant and
| finally successful efforts of the Canadians to
divide with them the advantage of our domes-
| tic market.
Every additional barrel of -four forced upon
the British market tends to lower the price in
London, and to lower the price for the world at
large. The object of the British system, car
ried out in the repeal Of the Corn Laws, is, to
! destroy the domestic markets of the world and
thus to compel the farmers everywhere to bring
| their grain to England, there to exchange it for
| cloth and iron; and the more that object can be
| accomplished, the frmer must become their
| prosperity as the higher must be cloth and iron,
and the lower must be food. To what extent
| Sir Robert Peel's measures tended to produce
these effects is shown in the fact that after Cal
! ifornia and Australia had added hundreds of
millions of dollars to the currency of the world,
| and had thus created q great market for food,
| -four was lower in this city than il had been
| since the deplorable British Free Trade times
| that led to the passage Of the first Protective
| Tariff of l824-while lead, iron, and cloth, were
all at the highest prices. England was then
| buying in the cheaper market and selling in the
dearer one; and this she was doing by help OF
Mr.. Walkers tariff of 1876.
| Every additional barrel of -four UitltheId from
| the English, or regulating, market, tends 10
| raise the price in London, and of course in the
/ world at large, to the great advantage Of the
! farmers everywhere. Protection has made
| great market for food in France, and has thus
| caused the domestic consumption TO absorb
much that would otherwise have had to seek
market in England, thereby largely benefting
| our farmers. Protection in Germany has, =
| the short space of twenty years, created do
nestle market that keeps German food and