Louisiana capitolian. (Baton Rouge, La.) 1879-1881, 1881-04-26

OF iron, and therefore lays no duty upon for.
eign corn or iron. That Is free trade.
On all hands we hear that America is making
giant strides In manufacture and commerce, and
that England s losing her commercial a ssp.enla-
we shotad be glad If this were true-thatis that
the rate of progress In America should exceed
the rate in England But Ia 1t true
1t is certainly not true Of the shipping inter-
ests of the two nations Twenty years ago we
almost led the world. Our ships were nearly as
numerous as those Of England ard were even
more numerous In proportion TO population.
Since then England has enormously increased
her shipping, while our bas enormously decfeas-
ed. Well 1t is said, that Is because OF the dep.
relations Of the Alabama. But this too childish
an argument to be seriously dealt with. Nearly
sixteen years have passed since the Alabama
committed her LAST depreciation. The whole
wealth of the world replaced every three years.
We might as well say that the decline Of our
commerce was caused by the war ofjsl2
II is not true of our foreign commerce eener-
ally We know that comparisons have lately
been published which seem to indicate the con.
trary. But this Is done by giving only the sta.
tistics for the three years ending In 1879 during
which the commerce Of England decreased--a
thing which never happened for three years
continuously In nearly forty years. England
has gained all this loss In nine months Of the
present year, and has resumed her forward prog.
ress, though not quite at the old rate. Let us,
however, compare the progress Of the two COIN.
tries not for three years but for twenty. We
compare 1850 and 1870, because the returns for
1880 are not complete. In 1859 the foreign com.
mcrcc Of Great Britain amounted to- ,622 600 900
In 1870 II amounted to about s3,O0O,00 00O In
1859 the commerce OF the United States amount.
ed to sG05 900 0O0 and In 1879 to 1922 900 900.
What is the result Of the comparison Our
per cent. In twenty years England's at the rate
of s. per cent. The mere increase of British
commerce In that time IN more than the whole Of
our foreign commerce for the year. We started
twenty years ago, s927, 900, 900, behind England
and we are aow more than 81, 700, 600 behind
her. Yet the population OF England has in
creased Only Is per cent. in twenty years. while
ours has increased So per cent Great Britain
and Ireland have population of less than "a
600 600. We have more than Al, 100000. Yet our
foreign commerce Is only twoHfths Of Great
Britains. In 1850 British commerce amonetcd
TO $50 per head; in 1879 to $500. In 1859 our
commerce amounted to $50 per head in 1879 to
SSs per head,
1t will be said, of course, that England starts
with the advantage OF large capital True but
we started with smaller business, and ought to
increase at much greater rate per cent than
England because the basis on which our per.
easier to double business Of 200 than Oslo 600.
A nation that does not increase small com.
merCe ut u ratio larger than that by which an
other nation increases very large commerce Is
falling behind in the race for wealth. Many pa
irietic Americans have been exitlting over sta
tisiGs which lod them to believe that our com
meIce was growing at the rate OF 100 per cent.
in twenty years, while Englands was only grow.
ing at the rate OF Is per cent. Unhappily, the
fact is not SO bnt what IL had been tlue Even
at that rate, we should need two centuries to
catch up with England
Let us tell a little tale.
A dry goods peddar sold 81, 900 worthof goods
in 1s1s and $1,000 worth in $50 He learned
that II. j. ClatiD Il Coz had sold $40 600 600 of
goods in ISIS and s., 600. 900 in 1919. Where
upon our peddlar rojoccd, and said to Ill of bis
friends See how rapidly | I'm supplanting
that etlcte Claiiin. Ny sales are increasing at
the rate of10O per cent year, while hisare only
increasing 80 per cent. Rejoice with me my
friends iar At this rate ! shall soon be nj the
head of the trade. Indeed, | am already think
ing that II will he my duty to DO charitable to
poor Clallin in his old age.
That is the fashion after which we arc gain
Ing upon British commerce.
But was 1t always 50 il 1850 our foreign
Commerce stood AZ sii0OO 900 aud IN 1850 at
Sf52 000, 900, an advance OF l2l per cent IN ten
cent. in the same period. If we had continued
to gain between 1860 and iss0at the same rate
as from 1850 to 1860, oli commerce would have
amounted to il, 7i0, 0DD.O0O in 1870 and $4,000
900 600 IN 1880 Thus we should have Tar out.
stripped England. and have stood to-day at the
head of the worlds commerce
But it will be sold, no allowance Is made iol
the effect of the war Very well; we started
from the first year after the war--the year emit
ing June 30tll isG6--as the basis. But our com
merce even then was 800 600 600 and therefore
should have been Sl.2oO 900 900 IN 1870 and
sos 900 900 in l5sO, whereas ii is only half that
! amount
What Is the matter No assumption; for we
have gained more rapidly under resumption
than We did before. Not especially imitation :
! for the wrstched system of state banks when
existed in lsGO was about as injurious as any
initiation we have had since the war, Defective
| as Ia our present currency basis, it is the best
we have ever had. Not the lack Of protection
to American industry for wehave never had SO
much of 1t for fifty years past as we have had
since 1880 Between 1850 and 1850 we suffered
| from all the disastrous effects of the low tariff
1t was far from being free trade tariff but
rave n proteCti0n of 20 to 30 per cent to our
| leading manufactures. We increased our pro
lection to 80 60 and even 100 per cent on tn,
same goods between 1850 and 1867. England
| took off the last shred Of protection between
1916 aud 1850. The result of each system Is
shown in this comparison of the commerce OF th'
two nations. Illinois Tiadesman and Manufac
turer
! w. .ntnnw1pdpe n Oleasant call or