H. OF R.] The Tariff [JUNE 12, 1832. have made it clear to their several Governments, that the fined sugars at little more than half the price of what consumer would gain more by paying a higher price for they cost the consumers in France. home manufactures, than by purchasing them of the The relative dearness of sugar in France naturally ac foreigner at a lower price. This strange system, support-counts for the trifling consumption compared with that of ed by the cupidity of some, and ignorance of others, has other countries. In the United States, according to M. de at length prevailed, and we have now in the two hemi-Humboldt, each individual consumes about four kilospheres the sad spectacle of a multitude of industrious grammes; England, seven kilogrammes each person; Hampeople, who madly vie with each other in order to pro- burg, more than five; the other parts of Germany not more duce, at enormous expense, the greatest part of their than three; France will hardly average four pounds of sugar articles of consumption, which they could purchase in- for each individual. The wretched expenditure of a comfinitely cheaper of their neighbors. These latter in their modity so agreeable to the taste of every body, in a country turn exclude foreign articles, while they ruin themselves whose means are so fully adequate to gratify it, is a natural in adopting a system of retaliation. Thus do we cultivate consequence of our colonial system. It is for the purpose the beet root to obtain sugar at forty centimes, and reject of sustaining in the colonies the costly production of su the sugars of India which cost only twenty. gar, that we have adopted the system of prohibition, or at "We pay our own manufacturer five hundred francs least that we refuse to admit foreign sugar except on confor a ton of iron, which the British offer us for two hun-ditions in a manner totally impracticable. It is in vain that dred and ten francs. And this is what they call protecting nations vie with each other in order to furnish us at a modeindustry and encouraging labor. The dreadful conse-rate price; in vain do the Brazils, Cuba, and Porto Rico proquences of such a system must sooner or later be lament-duce annually two hundred millions of kilogrammes, Louiably felt. Production foreign to the soil and climate, thus siana and Florida their fifteen millions. France persists thrown out of its element, has naturally experienced nu- in interdicting these fine markets, that she may pay forty merous and violent shocks. Such a state of irregularity frances for fifty kilogrammes at Martinique and Guada is only the forerunner of a crisis from which it is impos-loupe, for what she could obtain at Cuba for eighteen sible to escape but by revolution. That revolution seems francs, and in India for ten francs. the only means of putting an end to the distress of which "The premiums, therefore, for the colonial sugar of all the various branches of industry accuse each other. It our West India islands is thirty francs for a hundred kilois in vain for us to strive to avert it, it is inevitable: men, grammes, that is to say, about sixteen millions of francs, an perfect strangers to the science of political economy, annual average, our consumption being valued at sixty while turning their attention to futurity, more or less dis- millions of kilogrammes. Notwithstanding the deplorable tant, cannot help discerning it, though in a manner rather results of such a state of things, our legislators, too deeply confused, and men of intelligence invoke it with all their intent upon the interests of the colonists, have never ceasmight." ed, since the restoration, to increase the duty, which was In the extract which I have just read, does not the in-augmented to five francs on foreign sugars by an act of telligent author exhibit, most strikingly, the folly of re- the 17th June, 1820. The Chamber of Deputies was not striction and prohibition? Does not the policy of our own afraid to carry it to twenty-five francs, although the GoGovernment furnish, as he intimates in his note, a parallel vernment only asked for an augmentation of fifteen francs. instance of absurdity? In France, they protect the manu- Shortly after, under favor of that stupid sort of protec facture of sugar from the beet root, by paying forty cen- tion, colonial cultivation developed itself in an astonishing times for the same quantity which would otherwise cost manner, and foreign sugar was thereby excluded from our them but twenty centimes. In the United States, we pro- market. Nevertheless, in spite of all this encouragement, tect the manufacture of sugar in Louisiana, by paying se- the colonial produce was hardly sufficient for the consump ven or eight cents, when we could otherwise purchase it tion of France, and we are now experiencing a twofold at four cents, or little more. In France, they protect the prejudice from the privation imposed upon us through the manufacture of iron, by paying to their own manufac- factitious dearness of sugar, as well as from the trifling turers five hundred francs per ton, when they could pur-importance of the outlet which the colonies present to chase it from the British manufacturer at two hundred our manufactures." francs. So, in the United States, we protect the manu- As much time as I have already consumed, Mr. Chairfacture of bar iron, by paying from twenty-two dollars man, I cannot forbear to present to the committee some and forty cents to thirty-seven dollars more per ton, in the further views, from the same instructive political econo form of duties, than we could otherwise purchase it for. mist, on this ruinous and oppressive policy, as regards the The author, speaking more particularly in reference to important and indispensable article of iron. the manufacture of sugar from the beet root, under the borne in mind that we are now paying a tax of from forty protecting policy of France, and the diminished consump-to one hundred and fifty per cent. on iron, in order to tion of that article, in consequence of restrictive regula- protect its domestic production, amounting, in the aggre tions, makes the following very pertinent remarks, which gate, probably to not less that one million five hundred thou will be found, in a good degree, applicable to our own sand dollars per annum. This, too, it will be recollected, is for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals, who call "It is to be ascribed to them that France is so much be-themselves iron masters, while mechanics, who work the hind other nations in the consumption of sugar, and that raw material, and are generally men of small capital, are she is obliged to pay much higher for it than any other na-only protected by a duty of twenty-five per cent. He country. It should be tion on earth. At Antwerp, refined sugar, after the duties says— are paid, at twelve or thirteen cents per pound; in Russia, eighteen or nineteen cents; at Hamburg, the best sugar is no less calculated to excite public solicitude than that of "The question of monopoly with respect to hardware will only command fourteen or fifteen cents per pound. sugars; it has given birth to a number of publications more We ourselves, by means of the drawback of sixty cen- or less animated, but all are strongly indicative of the im times, six cents, which we pay as a premium for the right portance of the subject. It is my intention here to offer of supplying Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and the Levant, a succinct account of it, with the view of putting our readare enabled to compete with foreigners, thereby allowingers in a situation to form their judgment from a knowledge the inhabitants of those countries to consume our best re- of the case. The Congress of the United States, during the Presidency of tons, "Let us begin with facts. The annual consumption of Mr. Adams, has, in its turn, fallen into the same fatal error of pro- valued at sixty millions of francs, (ten millions of dollars.) hibition." JUNE 12, 1832.] The Tariff. [H. OF R. Even the partisans of monopoly declare that the British "In ancient times the sacred plough employed can deliver iron on our coast at two hundred and -ten "The kings, and awful fathers of mankind.' francs per ton, while, on the other hand, no French esta- Agriculture, in such a country as ours, where there blishment can furnish it at less than five hundred francs; is no superabundance of population, where there is al hence it follows that if France purchased the iron of most immeasurable space for enterprise, is the pursuit which she stands in need of England, instead of making a demand for it at home, she would make a clear annual profit of more than thirty millions of francs, (five millions of dollars.) If, therefore, commerce were free and unshackled, no one could doubt that the consumer would go to England for his supply. best calculated to ensure the health, comfort, and independence of the citizen. Compared with the business of crowded manufactories, where not only the mature in years and strength, but tender childhood is compelled to toil from sixteen to eighteen hours out of the twenty-four for a mere pittance, and the labor of his little farm, to "But the indigenous manufacture of iron, incapable of him who is its lord, is almost an earthly paradise. standing competition, placed itself as early as possible I will detain you no longer. My humble and imperfect ander the shelter of the tariff. Under the vain, idle previews have already occupied too large a share of your text of snatching our country from dependence on the attention; yet I could not refrain from some expression of British in that respect, they imposed on us the most one- them, acting here under my high responsibility. That rous of every species of dependence; we are forced to we may imitate the examples of those who achieved our purchase at a very high price what our neighbors, who independence, and gave us our constitution; and that our surpass us in skill and ingenuity, offered us at a cheaper deliberations may result in the happy adjustment of all our rate. We must take a special care,' say they, not to be differences, and in the perpetuity of our liberty and Union, without that precious metal with which we till in peace is my most devout prayer. and defend ourselves in war; France might be surrounded Mr. CHOATE next obtained the floor, but Mr. ROOT with enemies, that her resources might become insuffi- claiming it, and appealing from the decision of the Chaircient, and her supply impossible. Why not then impose man, the question was taken on the appeal, and the House on ourselves a trifling sacrifice in favor of independence affirmed the decision of the Chair, and decided that Mr. and national industry" Thus it is, that frightened by vain CHOATE was entitled to the floor. terrors, seduced by motives more or less specious, we Mr. CHOATE yielded his right to Mr. Roor, who prohave consented to submit to the enormous duty which ceeded to speak on the violation of treaties occasioned by weighs so heavily on foreign iron, and which costs France the present rate of exchange in fixing the value of the so many millions. At first this duty amounted only to two dollar at $4 44. He contended that it ought to be at least francs fifty centimes per one hundred kilogrammes; it has $4 87. Mr. R. discussed the relative value of gold and gradually risen to twenty-five francs. Under the pres- silver, and showed how the gold coins of this country besure of this enormous tariff, a multitude of petit domestic came an object of merchandise, and not a medium of cirfactories have started up; immense fortunes rapidly ac- culation. quired: a sure proof, if we had no other, that the contributors have borne all the burden. The price has undoubtedly increased, and the proprietors of the forges have endeavored to ascribe to the owners thereof all the advantage they have participated with them; seventy thousand workmen have found employment; many estates have, in the long run, acquired considerable value. But if a few monopolizers have derived large profits, have not French productions experienced numberless obstacles? Is it not owing to the greater expenses of the foundries and of iron, that we should ascribe the dearness of our machinery, and the difficulty that our factories experience in competing with foreign production?" Mr. DENNY next obtained the floor, and addressed the committee till near six o'clock; when Mr. CHOATE again rose, but being, from the state of his health, unable to proceed, gave way to a motion of Mr. WILDE that the committee rise. After two counts, tellers were appointed, and the vote was found to stand yeas 62, nays 73. So the committee refused to rise. Mr. WILDE, of Georgia, then addressed the committee in opposition to the tariff policy. He had proceeded until near seven o'clock, and the lights were about to be brought in, when Mr. W. gave way for a motion that the committee rise. [On the following day Mr. W. resumed, and con"The question of hardware must resolve itself sooner cluded his speech. The following is an entire report of it.] or later, like that of sugars, in short, like all questions of Mr. WILDE said it had been his wish to address the that nature, by a march constantly progressive towards free committee at an early stage of this debate. His illness trade. The proprietors of the forges have had sufficient had prevented it. When he attempted to obtain the floor, time to make their experiments at the expense of the pub- after the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAVIS,] it lie; their experience in this respect must be consummate. was not from any overweening confidence in his ability to The tariff has only been conceded in the hope of improve-answer the arguments of one who was justly considered ment and perfection in the art; the moment is now arrived as the present champion of the restrictive system in that to exempt all the sources of national industry from the tri- House, but because he was anxious to speak before the bute which they have so long paid only on that condition." committee became too impatient to hear. He had another It has been well said that "prohibitions are to industry motive. The reasoning of the gentleman from Massachu what a hothouse is to vegetation-a means of enforcing setts naturally fell in with the current of thought he had the action of nature;" and it has been as well replied, himself been pursuing. Fortunately for him, he had not "what would be said of a country that should renounce succeeded in catching the eye of the chairman at that the cultivation of the vegetables of its own soil, in order time. If he had, he feared he would have exhausted his to raise, at an enormous expense, exotic plants"" This own strength and the patience of the committee in a fruitshort question embraces an answer to the whole argument less attempt to abridge what he had to say, without preby which the prohibitory system is sought to be maintain-senting a complete or a connected argument. Perhaps, ed. To my mind, there would not be more absurdity in even now, it were better he should leave the contest to rejecting the cultivation of our indigenous plants and vege- men more able, in every sense, to guide and animate it. tables, and substituting exotics in their stead, than there But he was hardly free to choose. He knew what was is in arresting the settlement and cultivation of our fresh, desired of him by those whose wishes he respected, and rich, and extensive domain, and forcing our citizens into remembered that no victory could be achieved, in any the labor of manufacturing establishments. Sir, the cul- cause, however just, if every private man believed his own tivation of the earth was the primeval, and is the most efforts useless. natural employment of man. The bill and all the amendments before the committee VOL. VIII.-218 Before he proceeded to examine how far any of these grounds could be made good, he begged permission to say a word or two on the bill from the Committee on Manufactures, and the amendments proposed by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEWART] and Massachusetts, [Mr. DAVIS.] [JUNE 12, 1832. Double the assumed the principle of protection. This policy was or unequal; it extends to all alike, or it favors some and defended on account of its influence on national wealth, injures others. If the latter, it is so manifestly unjust as its connexion with national security, or its dependence to be utterly indefensible. No one will justify swindling upon public faith. taxation, though some may attempt to mystify it. This is one of the main points of controversy. The South say the effect is unequal; that it depresses their industry, sed fosters that of others. Our Northern and Eastern brethren assure us this is all a mistake: that the system works admirably. They say they were never better off in their lives, and wonder why we should complain. Let us not Our revenue having become redundant, taxation must debate this matter with them for the present. If neces be reduced. Ten or twelve millions must come off. The sary, we can look into it by and by; we will endeavor to manufacturers contend that they, in their labor and capi- believe them, or, at least, we will suppose they believe tal, and the States which support them, pay their equal themselves, when they say the effect of the tariff is equal. share of all taxes. When you take off ten or twelve mil- If the effect of these taxes is equal, then they must either lions of taxes, therefore, manufacturing labor and capital raise the price of all articles equally, or they must lower are relieved from their just proportion of burdens to that the price of all articles equally; or they must neither amount, and, of course, can afford all their products raise nor lower the price of any article whatever. If they cheaper. The present protection is admitted to be ade- raise the price of all articles equally, what is the conse quate, even under the present taxation, of which it is quence? Merely that every one has the trouble of giv alleged the manufacturers bear their part. If you re-ing two pieces of coin, or two pieces of paper, for the lieve them from a part of this taxation, less protection will, same commodity he before bought with one. of course, be equally adequate. The proposal, then, to amount of money is requisite for the circulation of the take off the duties upon articles which we do not produce, same quantity of commodities, and that is all. If they and leave them unaltered on the protected articles, is, in lower the price of all articles equally, how is the country reality, a proposal to increase the present tariff. The benefited? A smaller sum of money will be required to capital objection to the bill of the committee is, that the circulate to the same quantity of commodities; but if the reduction that it proposes is totally inadequate. It will price of all things fall equally, the price of labor must fall not, in my opinion, amount to more than four, or, at the with the rest, and it is just as hard to get the small sum of utmost, five millions, and the greater part of that comes money necessary to purchase the low priced article, as it off the unprotected articles. On the others there is little was to get the large sum of money requisite to buy the high or no practical reduction. As to them, the alteration in priced article. But let us ask the political doctors, what is the rate at which the pound sterling shall be estimated, and the payment of the duties in cash, leave them pretty much as they are. It seems to be admitted on all hands that ten millions of taxes must be dispensed with. The only question is, upon what, and how, shall they be reduced? Justice and sound policy require taxation to be equal. The constitution says it shall be uniform. Uniformity, I take it, was required as a means of ensuring equality. As equality and uniformity are to be regarded in the imposition of taxes, so they are not to be lost sight of in their reduction. If existing taxes are equal and uniform in their operation, then nothing more is requisite than an equal and uniform reduction. If they are unequal, then the reduction should be so shaped as to restore equality. The first inquiry then must be, what is the character of the existing taxes? Are they equal and uniform in their operation or not? It would be a waste of time to enumerate and refute the thousand sophisms and absurdities which have been uttered to persuade us that these taxes are equal. Universal consent is said to be the voice of nature. It was relied on by some ancient philosophers as the strongest proof, next to the creation, of the existence of a God. Now, what is the evidence of universal consent on this question? Does not every one south of the Potomac feel that he is injured by the tariff; and every one north of it feel that he is benefited by it? They feel in it what has been called the seat of sensibility--the pocket nerve. Against that great professor of logic, arithmetic, The first great reason urged in favor of these high and and political economy, no sophistry can prevail. unequal duties is the protection of domestic industry. But men may be misled by party spirit. It may be remarked, in passing, that the dominion of lyze this matter, therefore, more carefully. These pro- prejudice, and the cunning of empiricism, may be detect tective duties, as they are called, must have some effected in the very mode of stating all those propositions by upon the production and distribution of national wealth. which the credulity of the many is made subservient to If they have no effect, they are of no use; and why do we the avarice of the few. Protection! Domestic industry! dispute about them? Do we refuse to repeal them merely What a judicious selection of those “ rabble-charming because it is of no sort of consequence whether they are words," which, as old South says, " repealed or not? Life and death are equally indifferent, fire wrapped up in them." How ingenious the combinasaid the Stoic. Why then do you not die? Because they tion for purposes of delusion! are equally indifferent. But this is not the ground as- "Verba ligant hominem ut taurorum cornua funes? sumed by our adversaries. The protecting duties then Protect domestic industry! Surely! Who can refuse? produce some effect. This effect, whatever it is, is equal Protection is a delightful task. It is, besides, a political Let us ana the disorder, what is the proscription? What was the com- Protection to American industry. carry so much wild in JUNE 12, 1832.] The Tariff. [H. OF R. duty. Then industry is so beneficial; and to protect in- without protection? The necessity of some coloring to dustry so commendable! But, above all, domestic industry: disguise such an absurdity has been perceived by those our own industry in opposition to that of foreigners! The who profit by it. Accordingly, we are told that though appeal is irresistible! Few will wait to listen to objec- they can and do manufacture cheaper than Great Britain, tions. May it not be said, however, that to trammel the yet, if the duties are reduced, British merchandise will be freedom of individual pursuits by complicated legislation poured in upon us to such an extent that the manufactuis to direct and not protect industry? Has any other pro-rers will be all ruined, and then the English will have the tection to industry ever been found beneficial, except that power to charge us what they choose. Prices will rise, afforded by a cheap, just, and pacific Government, which and, after having destroyed so much American capital, we protects life, liberty, and property? Are not all kinds of shall be worse off than we were before. The only evidomestic industry equally entitled to protection? And is dence yet offered that our manufactures are cheaper not that as much domestic industry, which furnishes the than the British, is, that the prices of all manufactured domestic product with which the foreign article is pur- articles in this country have fallen immensely since the tachased, as that which is employed in a home manufacture? riff of 1816. But no one tells us how much they have fallen How then does this question of protection stand? in England during the same time, or how much lower they would have fallen in this country if it had not been for the exorbitant duties. If one kind of industry alone is protected, it must be at the expense of all the rest. If all are protected alike, none are benefited. You merely enable me to put my hand into my neighbor's pocket, and take out as much as you have previously authorized him to take out of mine. This is the money system therefore; if all are protected at the expense of all, it is pernicious. If some only, at the expense of others, it is both pernicious and unjust. By rendering us independent of foreign markets. By promoting the national defence, By creating a home market. I shall attempt to show the fall of prices abroad in another place. At present, I wish to dispose of the other objection. We are not told how, and by whom, this plan for the ruin of our manufactures, by a destructive glut of foreign merchandise, is to be conducted. They tell us, indeed, in vague terms, that the British Government But it is denied that though you protect all at the ex- would gladly expend millions to destroy our competition. pense of all, that is to say, impose duties, or grant boun- But the British Parliament have never, as far as I know, aptes for the benefit of every species of domestic product,propriated a farthing to carry on this manufacturing war. by which the price of every thing is enhanced to the con- But the manufacturers themselves will do it. Now, I subsumer, the result is pernicious. On the contrary, every mit that it is not probable such a large body as the British branch of industry is alleged to be indemnified in some one manufacturers can combine to carry on a scheme of this of the following ways: kind at their joint expense. It is less likely that a few will sacrifice themselves for the rest; and it is utterly impossible they should all ruin themselves merely for the pleasure of destroying our manufactures. Such arguments, therefore, may do for those who record that "the It will appear, I think, that into some one or other of Dutch, intending to ruin a rival manufactory of pipes in these pretences the whole of every argument in favor of Flanders, loaded a vessel with those articles, (of first nethe system may be resolved. They will be examined cessity,) and had her purposely wrecked near Ostend. hereafter. At present, there is another view of this sub- According to the marine laws of the city, the cargo of ject which may not be lost sight of. If we could supply pipes was landed, and sold at such low prices that the new our own wants cheaper by manufacturing at home, than manufacture sunk at once under the blow." by traffic with foreign nations, that would be a sufficient If the English manufacturers are as rancorous and as rereason for preferring domestic manufactures to foreign.solute as the Dutch, nothing can protect our manufactures Accordingly, it is sometimes asserted that we can, and do, short of utter and absolute prohibition. What is a duty manufacture cheaper than Great Britain, certain articles of fifty or sixty per cent. in the way of such men? They at least. It is alleged that this is the result of previous have only to freight a score or two of ships with broadprotection, and that, by persevering in the protective sys-cloths instead of pipes, and unless the Committee on Mafem, we shall come to manufacture all cheaper. The nufactures are instructed to bring in a bill to set fire to the fact that we can, in general, manufacture cheaper than cargoes, the tragedy of Ostend will be repeated. Great Britain, is denied. Having once stated the reasons There is, however, a less unreasonable view of the prowhy we could not, I will not repeat them. The few arti-tective system-the one taken by some of its supporters cles with which we can supply ourselves and others as in 1816. According to those gentlemen, we could not cheaply, or more cheaply than England, are such as re- compete with Great Britain then. Wages were too low quire comparatively little capital; such as are carried on there; capital was too plenty; machinery too perfect; but rather by tradesmen than by manufacturers-articles of if protection were afforded to our manufactures, then only great bulk, paying a heavy freight when imported, or in their infancy, for a few years, all this would be remethose of which the raw materials are furnished here at a died. With the progress of our population wages would much lower price, and which cannot be exported to ad- fall; with the lapse of time capital would increase; pracvantage to be wrought up abroad, on account of their great tice and ingenuity would improve our machines. When bulkiness and comparatively small value. Such are car- once solidly established, our manufacturers would be able riages, furniture, the manufactures of wood, boots, shoes, to undersell the European, because they have the raw masaddles, harness, and the various manufactures of leather, terials and provisions cheaper. In a little time they could hats, soap, candles, some descriptions of glass, &c. All be made to contribute to the revenue. In short, it was these have grown up from the necessity of the case, with- only a question of how much present suffering we were out protecting duties, and would continue to flourish if willing to endure for great future enjoyment; all of which every protecting duty was removed. But suppose it were we were solemnly promised. admitted that we can manufacture cheaper than Great Now, how does the matter stand upon that footing? Britain, what is the necessary inference? If we can, all What has protection cost us? And what have we got by protection is unnecessary, and, so far as it increases the it? It has cost us our constitution. It has cost us all our price, unjust. The very groundwork of protection is the harmony and brotherly feeling. It has nearly cost us the inability of the manufacture to stand without it. Union. But I pass this by. We are talking of money to What then are we to think of the advocates of a system, those who regard money, and I will estimate it in dollars who tell us at one moment they can manufacture cheaper and cents, and put out all the contested items claimed by than Great Britain, and the next, that they are ruined the South. We have had protection for sixteen years. Independence of foreign nations. [JUNE 12, 1832. Let us estimate the ordinary profits of the country at six the prohibitive duties. When we ask, however, why then per cent. The manufacturing profits, then, with this not repeal or reduce the exorbitant duties on cottons, protection, and as a remuneration for the novelty of the woollens, wool, iron, hemp, sugar, &c. what is the answer? experiment and the precariousness of the investment, The same cuckoo note of political advantages. We shall must have been at least nine per cent. It is notorious that be inundated with foreign goods. We shall be drained of capital flowed into manufactures from all quarters. In our specie. We shall be dependent on foreign nations. addition, they must have a reserved fund, to replace their My object is, first, to show that all the arguments of machinery, &c. This may amount to two per cent. Now, the system, when pursued, resolve themselves into these, I should be justified, by the reports of the manufacturers and next to examine their validity. themselves, in estimating the capital invested at an average of two hundred millions from 1816 to 1832. I will These, too, are captivating words. But there are vatake it only at one hundred and fifty millions. Five per rious kinds of independence: the independence of abuncent. beyond the ordinary profits on one hundred and dance, the independence of privation. To be indepenfifty millions for sixteen years, will be one hundred and dent of foreign supply, by having enough of our own, at twenty millions. From 1832 to 1848, another period of a cheaper rate, is no doubt advantageous; but the benefit sixteen years, the average may be taken at two hundred is in the abundance, not the independence. The naked and fifty millions, and the superfluous interest, supposing Britons were independent of woollen manufactures, but manufacturing profits to decline by competition, at four I do not perceive the advantage of their independence. per cent.; this would give one hundred and sixty millions. To be independent of foreign supply, by substituting a In 1848, therefore, the excess of profits obtained by the worse and dearer article of our own, is a mismanagement manufacturers beyond the ordinary profits of other pur- of our resources. It is the independence, not of riches, suits, would be nearly equal to the whole value of the but of self-inflicted poverty.* But independence of then existing establishments. foreign nations is essential to security. I do not perceive this. It seems to be forgotten that dependence is muare dependent on Great Britain for manufactures, she is dependent on us for raw materials. Suppose we exchanged American gold for British broadcloths, the most unfavorable kind of traffic for us, according to the friends I am not ignorant that the tax paid for protection on of the restrictive system: should we be more dependent on woollens, independent of that paid by way of revenue, the English manufacturers for broadcloths than they has been estimated at eight millions; the tax on iron, at would be on us for money? Perhaps a stronger instance two millions; on sugar, at two millions; on all other ar- could not be given than the dependence of England on ticles, it may amount to three millions. I should be fully Russia for the principal materials of her navy. The sails justified, therefore, in estimating the annual cost of the and rigging of a first rate man of war require one hunprotecting system to the country at fifteen millions; and, dred and eighty thousand pounds of rough hemp for their since 1816, two hundred and forty millions; while our fabrication." Five acres of land are said to be required, whole manufacturing capital is estimated at only two hun- on an average, to produce a ton of hemp. Upwards of dred and fifty millions. But whenever this view of the four hundred acres of land, therefore, would be necessary subject is pressed, the manufacturers say they have no to furnish the tackle of one vessel. In 1785, the import of profits; that it has all along been a losing business. If hemp into England, from St. Petersburg, in British ships, this be so, it is to my mind a still more conclusive argu- amounted to seventeen thousand six hundred and ninetyment for the abandonment of the whole system. If one five tons, and must have been the produce of eighty-eight hundred or two hundred millions of capital are wastefully, thousand acres of land. In 1788, the importation was and even mischievously employed in a species of industry fifty-eight thousand four hundred and sixty-four tons, the which, whilst it makes every one else poorer, affords no produce of three hundred thousand acres. It is perfectly profit to those who follow it, in God's name give it up at apparent England could not hope to supply her own once. If it will not pay the ordinary interest, then the consumption. This is an exceedingly mitigated view of the burden. I am aware that the estimate of the manufacturers of the tual. If we depend on them, they depend on us. If we capital invested and dependent on protection is much greater. But, as they naturally seek to exaggerate the importance of their interests, their statements ought not, perhaps, to be literally taken even against themselves. nation is a loser, annually, five, eight, or ten millions, ac- But this dependence of a maritime Power for the most cording to the degree in which the profits of manufac-essential sinews of her strength, carrying a peculiar ap turing capital fall short of the average profits of other pearance of danger in time of war, never lessened the pursuits. This, then, seems to be the dilemma. Manufac-security of England; while the dependence of the Rusturing industry and capital, independent of all protection sian landholders on England for their rents made pesce except that which ordinary revenue duties, and the ex-with England indispensable to them, and actually enforc pense of transportation on the foreign commodity, afford, ed it by the unpunished murder of one sovereign, and unare either as profitable, or more profitable, or less profit-resisted menaces to another.† ttable, than labor and capital engaged in any other cm- Commercial independence, then, increases the chances ployment. If it is as profitable, it requires no protection. of war to a nation, by diminishing the motives of other If it is more profitable, it deserves none. If it is less profit-nations to remain at peace with her. It impoverishes able, it is a waste of money to protect it. To say that her, also, and renders her less able to support the very manufactures require protection because they are less wars which it provokes. Out of restrictive systems have profitable than commerce or agriculture, what is it but grown the wars of commerce and colonies for the last saying that manufacturing labor is less profitable than other two hundred years. What was kinds of labor, and manufacturing capital less productive | But we are not a whit more independent for our manuthan other capital; and, therefore, those who are engaged factures, if we have not a navy; and if we have a navy, in the more productive kind of labor, and those who make we are independent without manufactures. the most profitable investments of capital, must contribute the great cause of distress during the late war? A few to pay for misemployed labor and injudiciously invested British ships blockaded our defenceless ports, and there capital? In other words, those who are doing their best was neither a vent for our surplus raw produce, nor adto increase the wealth of the nation, must pay tribute to mission for foreign supplies. Suppose we were still without a navy; of what consequence would our manufac those who do their best to reduce it. It is clear, then, that, considering the matter merely in an economical point of view, the nation is a loser by |