The Washington union., 1857-10-03
STATE OF OUR FoREIaN COMMERCE IN 1851.

during the fiscal year ending June 80, 1857 in
which exhibited, the result of a carefullybal-
anced credit and debit ofcourse,
on the official statement which we had before us-a
net balance in favor after the years operations
Of ss,S6546l. 1t is unnecessary to reproduce the
elementary figures from which, by the plain rules Of
simple arithmetical combinations, arrived at the
given result, inasmuch the figures were derived
from official statement and neither the correctness
Of the calculations has been questioned the result
itself disproyed invaidated. Holding back the
amount Of domestic specie and bullion exported, we
ascertaned, after creditng ourselves with So, ,403,
229, the amount of specie imported minus the
amount re-exported, that the balance against us-i
g. the of imports of merchandise over exports
of merchandise to $5l 81 ,s91. We could
very easily have reduced TO mere nominal figure,
if could not have entirely cancelled even this bal
ance, by aggregating into Offset the amount of
freghts, commissions, assurances, excess of real
values abroad over declared values at our custom
houses at the ports Of Departure but we did not feel
at liberty to travel out of the official record before
even for items of credit that could question
especially as we held in specie and bullion
a balance of nearly So, 100000
Our article purported to be nothing more than
mere resume of the official statement of foreign
commerce in 1857, which had appeared few days
in the columns of the Union and such
its general accuracy and correctness, both as re-
spects its calculations and results fully endorsed
by the very journals which have found fault with
the article itself because it "did not embrace large
quantities of goods imported during the three months
preceding [April, May, Junel which had been ware
housed under the new tariff law" and further be-
cause the imports into New York for the months of
July and August were also excluded from ''these
returns"
Is the Boston Traveller, in which find our arti-
Gle copied from the Boston Post with this objection,
quite sure that '.these returns did not embrace
large quantities of goods imported during the three
months preceding or where did that journal learn
that such goods wero warehoused at all "under the
new tariff law of 1917 We had believed, and,
with all due Difference to the opinion of our
Boston contemporary, we still believe, that the
warehousing system first recommended by
Mr. Secretary Walker in his very able report Of
December 3, ls45 and that in pursuance of that
recommendation it incorporated in the tariff
act of the following year, and that, consequent
ly, whatever quantities of merchandise were ware
housed during the three months preceding" or at
any other time since ls46, We're warehoused by vir
tue of that act and not ''under the tariff law
of 1857. We further of the opinion that the
descriptions and values of merchandise imported
into the United States unless they declared for
transit to foreign countres entered the books
of our custom-houses as soon the importation at
the port is legally effected for which purpose twenty
four hours are allowed after entering port and not
when withdrawn from the warehouse either for
exportation or consumption. If we are correct in
these views Of the warehouse system, it must follow
that @he large quantities of goods imported during
the three months preceding July were embraced
in the returns and the objection of the Boston Trav
eler necessarily falls to the ground. Indeed, the
only reference to the warehouse system which oc-
ours in the act of 1857 is merely incidental and
planatory as to the time when the duties shall
crue merchandise in the public stores the first
day of July Section four of that act rectes that
all goods, wares, and merchandise which shall be in
the public stores ON the first day of July aforesaid
shall be subject on entry thereof for consumption
to 10 other duty than if the had been imported
respectively, after that day"
Why we did not embrace 'the imports into New
York for the months of July and August" in a re-
sumo of our foreign commerce for the fiscal year
ending June 80, simply because, not having of
fetal data for such statement, were it admis-
sibe by way of an appendix, reserved it for fu-
ture occasion when the returns for the entire fiscal
year to which it will properly belong shall be Off
cially spread before the country When this period
shall arrive the true commercial rank of these two
months, or Of any other two months within the fiscal
year. can be best ascertained by aggregating them
with the remaining ten, and casting up the total
suits. 1t certainly would be not only an uncertain,
but very unfair way to ascertain the results Of our
foreign commerce for whole fiscal year, and adjust
the balances for against us, if to select
any months distinct and separate from the remain
ing ten, and construct conjectura balances way
or the other which, if correct for the particu-
lar period they embrace, must necessarily merge and
disappear in the aggregate results shown by the Off
cia statement for the entire period IT. therefore,
"orT mportations have been excessive and have
contributed to the present financial pressure, our
Boston contemporary must point to some better
authority for the assertion than the vague general-
ties which it rests it's rebuke of the Boston Post
for endorsing the correctness of our figures by trans