New-York tribune., 1869-03-03

1
an increase in those ten years of only AT per
cent SO we have the increase of British COM
merce at within fraction of double tile rates
of the growth of wealth in the period There
fore commerce was not repressed, restricted,
or diminished below its fair proportion by the
English system of trade.
Now let us see how manufactures hgured I'D
this immense import trade, which stood III 1904
ot s739 O8G 9O7 and rose in 1864 to $1,333,518,-
034. The enumerated articles of foreign manu-
facture imported into the United hlngdom III
1854 amounted to G7,970.209. This is just OF
per cent of the total imports enumerated III
the year 1894 these articles amounted to 3D.
555, ,79O which is 90 per cent OF the total imports
of enumerated articles. If we allow the hho
proportion of manufactures among the unenu-
merated imports, the proportion remains the
same to the entire Imports 1T flour were treat
ed as n manufacture-which it cannot be called
when we are speaking of the products OF skilled
industry, such as protection ,contempiates-it
would add 9-10 per cent to tho manufactured
imports of 1854, and 110 per cent TO those
of 1854 .....-...
Here then we find England takes manufac-
lures to less than six per cent OF her total I'M
ports yet, Notwithstanding this almost total
exclusion Of manufactures, effected by superb
ority in home production, and exceeding IN
| prohibition the force of any protective tariff
ever invented, England's importing trade
stands at higher figure and grows more rap
idly than any other. What then becomes OF
this foOlishly misappled maxim directed against
the protective policy Of the United States
"Those who will not buy need not expect to
"sellP"
The maxim among us really means that II
we do not sell raw materials-woOl, cotton,
lumber, and breadstuffs and provsions-we can
have no foreign commerce. This proposition,
in its general bearing, is annihilated by the
facts OF British trade history. The real value
of the British and Irish products exported from
the United Kingdom was, in 1854, E0f,1a,72O,
and in 1864, G1G0,4 0j3. The total Of all raw
materials exported reached no higher in either
year than four per cent of the enumerated
articles and of these coal, culm, and clnder
were two-thirls of the value. SO, the ex-
port of raw materials and provisions is not
necessity of commerce in n country whose in
dustry is thoroughly well diversified
Again, we compare the growth of commerce
in France, under protective rates of duty
almost prohibitive of competition with her
domestic industry, with that of England under
her freest system of trade. During the ten
years 1927 to 1886, the aggregate imports and
exports of France amounted to 13,Bl.UO,OOO
francs. After an interval of twenty years, In the
ten years lS47 to 1856, they amounted TO 81 ,S6l,-
100000 francs-aR increase of 19 per cent.
England under her protective system, IN the
ten years 1927 to 1885, exported products OF the
United Kingdom, in real value, E4O5, ,4O6,O66;
and in the ten years Of her free trade system,
from 1S47 to 1856, an aggregate value OF
GsO3 74s 66O-an increase in the same twenty
years of only oS per cent. We have not the real
value of the British imports for both these
periods but we assume that they kept pace
with the exports. by these figures it appears
that French commerce, under a rigidly pro-
tectiye system, grew much more rapidly than
the British under her system Of unrestricted
trade. .|---
The simple truth is that protection, or ex-
clusion of manufactured goods, has not the
effect Of limiting the quantity or UGlue OF
foreign imports, but does determine their
kind that is, under protection, nation
chooses iuhat and what kinds of goods it will
buy and sell abroad, which is the soul and
essence of truly free trade.
| We have thus given the effect upon COM
merce, especially upon imports, of the English
system of exclusion of manufactures by SUI
periority in production, and by the French
! system of protective legislation; and we find
that the figures and facts confute the maxim
used among us to awaken our agricultursts
| and merchants, and seduce them into antag-
onism to our present commercial policy.
! Our own commercial history is in full con-
| frmation of the doctrine which we support by
our examination of the two foreign nations
already cited
Tn the ten years 1923 to 1888, under the two
protective tariffs of 1924 and 1925 our imports
of foreign merchandise, exclusive of gold and
silver, increased 30 per cent. In the ensuing
free trade period of eight years, from 1888 to
| 1S41, they increased 15i per cent. In the four
years 1S42 to 1916, under thoroughly protec-
tive tariff, they increased 21i per cent. In the
| three years 1857 to 1860, u thoroughly free
trade tariff ruling, period of our greatest
! agricultural productveness, the net increase of
our imports was about three millions of dollars,
| or less than one per cent And, passing over the
| war period, we find that from the end of the
fiscal year 1865 to that of 1868 the increase has
risen to 60 per cent.
We cannot think that any further demonstra-
| ton of the falsity of the maxim under discus
sion can be wanting.
| The best practical maxim is that q nation
can buy and sell more abroad when it buys
and sells the right kind of commodities-thos
only which sustain and foster its ability to buy
and produce the natural subjects of intema-
| tional exchange-and with this legitimate trade
,,orlyat nr;caa or nnonav yo1tae M yvo hova II,