The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-13
ENe1AND's INTEREST IN FREE TRADE.


tended to lessen their dependence upon
Great Britain" The measure, while emf
nently selfish, was equally wise. The nearer
nation comes to supplying all its wants
the nearer perfect independence does it APP
proach. 1t is not strange, therefore, that
England should regard our advance
ment toward industrial independence
with well-grounded fear. Yet how much
greater now the ground for apprehensive in
terest. If the crude appliances of the early
years of the eighteenth century furnished
material for alarm, what must be the feeling
in England now, with America dotted with
man ufactories as good as the best in the
world. The instinct of self-preservation
made England the natural enemy of Ameri-
can manufactures, and, never swerving in
its hostility it is yet anxious to break them
down in order to increase its own adj
vantage
In pursuance of an order from the House
of Commons to inquire into the industrial
affairs of the colonies, the English Board of
Trade, in 1882 urged that in New Eng
land, New York, Pennsylvania and Mary
land-''in the colonies northward of Vir-
gnia''-the colonists chad fallen into the
manufacture" of wooden and linen cloth,
that they raised fax and hemp,
which they manufactured into "a
coarse sort of cloth, bags traces and halters,"
to supply the domestic demand; that they
had established wooden mills for domestic
manufactures and that linen and cotton, for
shifting, were made; that they "manufac-
tured brown hollands for women's wear"
and that the Assembly of Massachusetts had
voted bounty of thirty shillings for every
piece of duck or canvas manufactured in
the province; that great quantities of hats
and leather were manufactured and exported
to Spain, Portugal and the West Indies; that
in Massachusetts they had set up paper
mill; that they had established iron works.
Sitting mill for the manufacture of bar iron
and of "cast iron or hollow ware"-"all
sorts of iron for ships'-and "a mandatory
for nails" and that they built many brig
antines and small sloops," which they sold
in the West Indies.
Following this, in 1850. law was passed
denouncing colonial manufacturers as com
mon nuisances," and commanding the colo
NAL governors to summarily abate them. 1t
was this spirit of determined monopoly that
at length drove the colonists into the revolu-
ton that eventually freed them from such
disastrous domineering on the part of the
mother country. Mindful of the oppression
under which they had SO hong suffered, and
fully awake to the Importance of establish
ing and maintaining every possible branch
of manufacture in America, the first bill in
troduced into Congress- and the second one
to pass, was one 'for the encouragement and
protection of manufactures" 1t was written
by James Madison, and was approved by
Washington on the 4th of July 1889, an au-
spicious augury for the measure. A year
later the bills imposts were increased and
extended.
British hostility to our growing manufac-
turing interests, and the attempt TO counter
act their effect in increasing our prosperity
and independence precipitated the war of
1912. Before that war the British govern
ment had sought to defeat the object of our
protection laws by cunningly devised
treaties. 1t was defeated in both, and our
ports remained closed to the importunate
British free-trader. At the close of the war
the British trader attacked our industries
in another way. He resolved, at whatever
cost, to flood our markets with English
goods, the object being. as declared by Lord
Brougham in the House OF Commons to
glut the market and thus override 1.-The
rising manufactures in the United States
which the war had forced into existence
contrary to the natural order of things"
This was met by the tariff act of April 1916,
a Southern measure reported in the House
from the committee on ways and means, by
William Lowndes, of South Carolina, 1t
was supported in celebrated speech by
John C. Calhoun, and passed by Southern
votes, against the protests and votes of New
England. The tariff acts of 1924 and 1928
increased and extended the provis-
ions of that of 1916. Each of
these measures, evincing a determination
on the part Of the United States to foster