-...-: " ' - 'r"'" " " " ' 1 1 "' 1 ,,-
401
AND
EWBEIKM COMMERCIAL, AOHICUILTlEJRAli AN MTESMAHY IMf ELMGEMCEK.
LIBERTY... .THE CONSTITUTION. . . .UNION .
?t!k av ir as
-P
i;
PUBLISHED,
TII03IAS WATSON.
At three dollars per annum pay able in advance.
1 " SPEECH OP MR. WEBSTER,
17 UPON THE TARIFF,
delivered in the House of Representatives of the
i . fc , . Untied States, April, 1824.
"X CONTINUED, j
Sir, J should not have gone into this prolix detail of
opinions from any consideration of their special im
portance on the "present occasion ; but, having hap
pened to state, that such was the actual opinion of the
government of England at the present time, and the
Accuracy of this re presentation having been so confi
dently denied, I have chosen to put the matter beyond
doubt or cavil, although at trie expense 01 uiese teui
jtw citations. I shall have occasion, hereafter, of re
temiig more particularly to sundry recent British
enactments, by way 01 snowing tue omgence ana
' spirit with which that government strives to sustain
hy navigating- -nterest, by opening the widest possi
rant'fo The enterprise of individual adventurers.
riv.ta that I have not alluded to these examples of
- i r . ' . l . l
' a foreign State an being nt to control our own poncy.
I Yin' the general principle,. I acquiesce. Protection,
L; "when carried to the point which ife now recommended,
jf- Tut to entire prohibition, seems-tb me destructive
: of a!l commercial intercourse between nations; We
'are urged to adopt the system upon general priiiei
'. pies ; and what would be the consequence of the uni
!" versal application of such a general principle, but that
i liatiuns.' would abstain entirely--jfroin all intercourse
uith one another. ? I do not admit the general prin
ciple; oh the contrary, I think freedom of trade to be
'.the funeral principle, and restriction the exception.
Andat js tor every State, taking into view its own
condition, to judge of the propriety, in any case, of
making an exception, constantly preferring, as, I
I . think' all wise governments willnot to depart, with
out .urgent reason, from the general rule.
There is another, point in the' existing policy of
England, to which I would most earnestly invite the
: attention of the" Committee, I mean the . warehouse
system, orvvlmt we .visually call the system of draw
hack. Very great prejudices 'appear to me, to exist
with us, on that mihjp We stjera averse to the ex
tension of the principle. The English government,
on the' contrary; .appear "to ha vef carried it to the ex
treme of liberality. I They haveiarrived, however,, at
tiijeir present opinions, and present practice, by slow
decrees. The transit system was commenced about
- ihS year 1803, but the first law was partial and limi
ted.' It admitted the importatiori-of raw material for
; exportation, but it excluded almost every sort of ma
rwtactured goods. This was done lor the same rea
son that we pYbpose to prevent the transit of Cana-
1 dfoh wheat t'li rough the United States the fear of
nihh" the cometition of the foreign article with our
-r own, m loreign markets; Better reflection, or more
' .'xperienee, has induced them to abandon that mode
vf ivasoniiir, and-to consider all such means ot in
. flufehciiiM" foreign markets as nugatory : since, in the
nresent activc.i
and eniichtenea state oi me wonu,
ti.nt.ions will supply tiiemeiveo
from the best sources,
jand thc true policy of all producers, whether of raw
nialeriak or of manufactured articles, is, not vainly
- i j - '. 1. 1 nnt '.rf "Vir mnrL-fit
to enueavor to Krejj umvi tmin w .....-..,
but tto conquer them in it, by the qualify and tl
:rhcnpiH of their articles. The. present policy oi
Etudan !, therefore, is, to allure the importation of
. i-onTinodituw into England, there'to be deposited in
English wKrchouscSj thence to be exported ijh assorted
and thus enable her to carry on a general ex-
nil nnnrt.ers of the frlobe. - Articles of
all kinds, with the single exception of tea, , may be
' ; brought into England, from any part of the world,
"m foreign as well as British ships there warehoused,
and again exported, 4 the pleasure of the owner,
' without thn payment of any duty, or government
- ehanjbwliatever. . - . : , ,
While I am upon this subject 1 would take notice
also of the recent proposition in: the English Parlia
ment to" "abolili the tax on importea wool; ana it is
observable that those wlio support this proposition,
crive the same reasons as have been offered here,
within the last week, against the duty which we pro
pose on the ame article They say, that their manufacturers-
require a chdap and; coarse wool, for the
supply of the-Mediterranciih. aiid Levant trade, and
thati without a more free 'admission of the wool of
the continent, that, trade will .all fall into the hands
' of the Germans and Italian who. will carry it on
' through Leghorn and Trieste; While there is a
duty "on foreign wool to protect ?the wool growers of
England, there is on the other hand a prohibition on
ve article, in aid of the
manutMctiirers. ' J. tie ojvnion
seems to ne
gaming
btremnh. that the true policy is t6' abolish both.
.Laws have long existed in England, preventing
'the emigration of aitisans, and the exportation of
machinery; but the policy of these, also, has become
doubted, aucl an inquiry has been instituted in Par
liament into tlw expediency of repealing them. As
i to the emigration of artisans, say, those who disap
prove the lawn, if that were desirable, no law could
'" effect it ; and as to the exportation of machinery, let
us
icate -and. export it, as we wouiu any umei
commodity, it v ranee is ueiermmcu w
weave her own cotton, let us if we may, still have
rhe benefit of-furnihing the machinery.
I hav e stated these things, sir, to show what seems
to be tlie general ;tone of thinking and reasoning on
- these cubjects in that country, the example of which
has, been so much pressed upon us. Whether the
. . prcenf policy of England be right or wrong, wise
or Unwise, it canrtot, it seems clearly to me, be quoted
as-an authority for carrying further the restrictive
-irUrid exclusive system, either in regard to manufac
tures or trade. To re-establish a sound currency,
to meet at once the shock, tremendous as it was, of
- the fall of prices, to enlarge her capacity for foreign
trade, to open wide the field of individual enterprise
and competition, and. to say, plainly and distinctly,
that thecountry must relieve itself from the embar
, rassments which it fet, by economy, frugality and
' renewed efforts of enterprise ; these appear to be the
general outline of the policy which .England has
.pursued. j
Mr. Chairmain : I will how proceed to say a few
words! upon the topic, but, for the introduction of
' .which)' into this debate, I should not! have given the
Committee, on this occasion, the trouble of hearing
me. . Some days ago, I believe it was when we were
settling the. controversy between the oil merchants
: and the fallow chandlers, the Balance of Trade
made its appearance 'in debate,- and. I must confess,
sir,; that I spoke, of t, or rather fepoke to it, some what
freelvl and'irreverentlv. I believe I used the hard
namei -which have been imputed to me ; and I did it
simply for the purpose of laying the spectre, and dri-
ving it back to its tomb. Certainly, sir, when I cal
led tbp old notion on this subiect nonsense, I did not
suppose that I should offend any one, unless the dead
should happen to hear me. AttUhe living generation
I took it for o-ra'ntl. would think the term very pro
perly applied. In this, however, I was mistaken.
T-he dead and the living rise up togetner to can me
to account, and I must defend myself as well as I am
able. I . ' f f
Let us inquire, then, sir, what is meant by an un
favorable balance of trade, and what the argument
is, drawn from that source. By an unfavorable ba
lance; of trade. I understand, is meant that state of
things in which importation exceeds exportation. To
apply it to our own case, it tne vaiue oi gooas im
ported, exceed the value of those exported, then the
balance of trade is said to be against us, inasmuch
as we have run in debt to the amount of this diffe-
jrence. i here'ore, it is saiu, mat, n a. uauuu wuu
nue long in a commerce like this, it must be rendered
absolutely bankrupt, it is in tne conoition oi a man
that buys more than he sells; and howcan such a
traffic fie maintained without ruin? Now, sir, the
whole tallacy of this argument consists in supposing
that whenever the value of imports exceeds that of
exports, a debt is necessarily; created to the extent of"
the difference : whereas, ordinarily, the import is no
more than the result of the export, augmented in va-
i lue by ithe labor of transportation. The excess of
imports over tne exports, in trutn, usuany snows tne
gains, not the losses, of trade; or, in a country that
not only buys and sells goods, but employs ships in
carrying goods also, it shows the profits of commerce,
and the earnings of navigation. Nothing is more
certain than that in the usual course of things, and
taking a series of years together, the value of our im
ports is the aggregate of our exports and our freights.
If the value of commodities, imported in a given case,
did not exceed the value of the outward cargo, with
which they were purchased, then it would be clear
to every man's common sense, that the J voyage had
not been profitable. If such commodities fell far short
in value of the cost of , the outward cargo, then the I
voyage would be a very losing one; and yet it would j
present exactly uiai suue oi umigs, wiucn, accoru-i
inir to the notion of a balance of trade, can alone
indicate a prosperous commerce. On the other hand
if the return cargo were found to be worth much more j
t'nnii thp rntwnrd rarrro. while the merchant h
than the outward cargo, whiie the merchant having
paid for the goods exported, and all the expenses of
the voyage, finds a handsome sum. yet in his hands,
which he calls profits, the balance of trade is still
against him, and. whatever he may think of it, he is
in a very bad way. Although one individual, or all
individuals gain, the Ration loses; while all its citi
zens grow rich, the country grows poor.' This is the
doctrine of the balance of trade. Allow me, sir, to
give an instance tending to show how unaccountably
individuals deceive themselves, and imagine them
selves to be somewhat rapidly mending their condi
tion, while they ought to be persuaded that, by that
infallible standard, the balance of tradi, they are on
the high road to ruin. Some years ago, in better
times than the present j a ship left one of the towns
of New England, with 70,lKX) specie dollars. She
proceeded to Mocha, oh the Red Sea, and there laid
out these dollars in coffee, drugs, spicee, &c. With
this new cargo she proceeded to Europe; two-thirds
of it were sold in Holland for 130,000 dollars, which
the ship brought, back, and placed in the same bank,
from the vaults of which she had taken her original
outfit. The other .third was sent to the ports of the
Mediterranean, and produced a return of 25,000 dol
lars in specie, and 15,000 dollars in Italian merchan
dise. These sums' too-ether make 170,000 dollars im
ported, which is 100,000 dollars more than was ex
ported, and is therefore proof of an unfavorable ba
lance of trcutCy to that amount, in this adventure.
We should find no great difficulty, sir, in paying off'
our balances if thi were the nature of them all.
The truth is, Mr. .Chairman, that all these obsolee
and .exploded notions nad tneir origins m very misc.
taken ideas oi the true nature oi commerce. ; 'Com
merce is not a gambling among nations for a stake,
to be won by some and lost by others. Ii lias not the
tendency Hecessariiy to impoverish one of the parties
to it, while it enriches: the other; all parties gain, all
parties; make profits, all parties grow rich, by the
operations of j ust and liberal commerce.! If the world
had but one clime, and but one soil; if all men had
the same' wants and the same means, on the spot of
their existence, to gratify those wants;! then, indeed,
what one obtained from the other by exchange, would
injure one party in the same degree that it benefitted
the other; then, indeed, there would be some founda
tiojifor the balance of trade. But Providence has
dwrsed our lot much more kindly. We inhabit a
vffgous earth. We have reciprocal wants, and recj
pYdcal means for gratifying one another's wants.
This is the true ongih of commerce, wdnch is nothing ,
more than an exchange of equivalents! and from the
rude barter of its primitive state, to the refined and
complex condition in which we see it, its principle is
uniformly the same ; its only object being, in every
stage, to produce that , exchange of commodities be
tween individuals and between nations, which shall
conduce to the advantage and to the happiness of
both. Commerce between nations has the same es
sential character, as commerce between individuals,
or between . parts of the same nation. Cannot two
indivduals make ah interchange bf commodities
which shall prove beneficial to both, or in which the
balance of trade shall be in favor of both? If not,
the tailor and the shoemaker, the Farmer and the
smith, have .hitherto very much misunderstood their
own infflest. And with regard to the internal trade
rtf a coifrjtry, in which the same rule would apply as
between nations, do we ever speak of such an ; inter
course being prejudicial to one side because it is use
ful to the other? Do we ever hear that, because the
intercourse between New York and Albany is advan
tageous to one of those places, it must therefore be
ruinous to the other? j J
May I be allowed, sir, to read a passage on this
subject from the observations of a gentleman, in my
opinion one of the most clear and sensible writers
and speakers of the age upon subjects of this sort ?
" There is no political question on wnicn tne preva
lence of false principles is so general, as in what re
lates to the nature of commerce and to the pretended
balance of trade ; and there are tew which have led
to a greater number of practical mistakes, attended
with consequences extensively preiuaiciai to tne nap-
piness of mankind., In this country, our parliamen
tary proceedings,' our public documents-, and the
works of several able and popular writers, have com
bined to propagate the impression that we are in
debted for much oi our ncnes to wnat is caueu me
balance of trade." " Our true policy would surely
be to prqgss, as tjie object and guide of our commer
cial system, that which every man who has studied
the subject, must know to be the true principles of
commerce, theXiiiterchange of reciprocal and equi
valent benefit. We may rest assured that it isfhot
in the nature of commerce to enrich one party at the
expense of the other; - This is a purpose at which, if
it were practicable, we ought not to aim; and which
if we aimed at, we could not accomphsh" These
remarks, I believe, ! sir, were written some ten or
twelve years ago. They are in. perfect accordance
with the opinions advanced in more elaborate trea
tises, and now that the world has returned to a state,
of peace, and commerce has resumed its natural
channels, and different nations arenjoying, or seek
ing to enjoy, their respective portions of it, all see
the justness of these ideas; all seej that, in this da
of knowledge and of peace, tliere can be no commerce
between nations but that which shall benefit all wib
are parties to it. ,
If it were necessary, Mr. Chairman, I might ask
the attention of the Committee to recur to a document
before us, on this subject, of the balance of trade. It
will be seen by reference to the accounts, that, in the
course of the last year, our total export to Holland
exceeded two millions and a half our total import,
Mr. Huskisson, President of the English- Board
ofTrade, ; - "
from the same country was but 700,000 dollars. 5 ow
can any man be wild enough to make any inference
from this of the gain or loss of our trade with Hol
land for that year ? Our trade with Russia for the
same year, produced a balance the other way ; pur
import being two millions, and our export but half a
million. But this has no more tendency to show that
Russia trade a losing trade, than the other statement
has to show that the Dutch trade has been a gainful
one. Neither of them, by itself, proves any thing.
Springing out of this notion of a balance of trade,
there has been another idea, which has been much
dwelt upon n the course of this debate ; that is, that
we ought not buy of nations who do not buy of us ;
for example, that the Russian trade is a trade disad
vantageous to the country, and oughi to be discoura
ged, because, in the ports of Russia,; we buy more
than we sell. Now. allow me to observe, in the first
place, sir, that we have no account showing how
much we do sell in the ports of Russia. Our official
returns show us only what is the amount of our direct
exports to her ports. But then we all know that die
proceeds ot other of our exports go to the same mar
ket, though indirectly. We send our own products,
for example, to Cuba, or to Brazil ; we there exchange
them for the
sugar
andf the coffee of those
coun
tries, and these articles we carry to t. Petersburg,
and there sell them. Again ; our exports to Holland
and Hamburg are connected! directly or indirectly
with our imports from Russia.4 What: difference does
it make, in sense or reason, whether a cargo of iron
be brought at St. Petersburg, by the j exchange of a
cargo of tobacco, or whether the tobacco has been
sold on the way, in a better market, in a port of Hol-
land, the money remitted to England, and the iron
paid for by a bill on London? There might indeed
have been an augmented freight, there might have
been some saving of commissions, if tobacco had been
in brisk demand in the Russian market. But s1ill
there is nothing to show that the whole voyage may
not have been highly profitable. That depends upon
the original cost of the article here,' the amount of
freight and insurance to Holland, the; price obtained
there, the rate of exchange between Holland and
England; the expense, then, of proceeding to St.
Petersburg, the price of iroir there, the rate of ex
change between that place and England, the amount
of freight and insurance home, and finally,, the value
of the iron, when brought to our own market. These
are the calculations which determintj; the fortune of
the adventure, and nothing can be judged of ii, one
way or the other, by the relative state of our imports
or exports with Holland, England, or Russia. .i i
I would not be understood to deny that it may often
be ourf interest to cultivate a trade with countries that
most require such commodities- as we can furnish, and
wdiich are capable also of directly supplying our own
wants. This is the simplest and most original form
of all commerce, and is, no doubt, highly beneficial.
And some countries are so situated,) doubtless, tliat
commerce, in this original form, or something near it,
may be all that they can, without considerable incon
venience, carry on. Our. trade, for example, with
Madeira and the Western Islands, has been useful to
the country, as furnishing a demand for some portion
of our agricultural products, which probably could
not have been bought, had we "not received their pro
ducts in return.' Countries situated st ill 'farther from
the great marts and highways of the commercial
world, may afford still stronger instances of the ne
cessity and utility of conducting commerce on the
original principle of barter, without much assistance
from the operations of credit and exchange. All I
would be understood to say is, that; it by no means
follows that that must be a losing trade with' any
country, from which we receive more of her products
than she receives of ours. And since I was supposed
the other day, in speaking upon" this1 subject, to have
advanced opinions which not only this country ought"
to reject, but which also other countries, and those
the mOst distinghished for skill and success in com
mercial intercourse, do reject, I will ask leave to refer
again to the discussion which I first mentioned in the
English Parliament, relative to the foreign trade of
that country. " With regard," says the mover of the
proposition, " to the argument employed against re
newing our intercourse with the north of Europe,
namely, that those who supplied us with timber from
that quarter, would not receive British manufactures
in return, it appeared to him futile ahd ungrounded.
If they did not send direct for our Manufactures ' at
home, they would send for them to Leipsic and other
fairs of Germany. ' Were not the Russian and Po
lish merchants purchasers there to a great amount ?
But he would never admit the principle, that a trade
wasi not profitable, because we were obliged to carry
it on with the precious metals, or that we ought to re
nounce it, because our manufactures' were not recei
ved iby the foreign nation, in returrj for its produce.
Whatever was received, must be paid for in the pro
duce of our land and labor, directly or circuitously,
and he was glad to have the noble Earl'sj marked
concurrence in this principle."
Referring ourselves again, sir, to the analogies of com
mon life, no one would say, that a farmer or mechanic
should buy oidy where he can do so by the exchange
of his own produce, or of his own manufacture. Such
exchange may be often convenient ; and, on the other
hand, the cash purchase may be often more conve
nient. It is the same in the intercourse oi nations.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker has placed this argument on
very clear grounds. It has been said, in the early
part of the debate, that if we cease to import Eng
lish cotton fabrics, England would no longer continue
to purchase' our cotton. To this Mr. Speaker has
replied, with great force and justness, that, as she
must have cotton in large quantities, she will buy the
article where she can find it best and cheapest ; and
that it would be quite ridiculous in her, manufactur
ing as she still would be, for her o-syn vast consump
tion, and the consumption of millions in other coun
tries, to reject our uplands, because; ;we had learned
to manufacture a part of them for 'ourselves. And
would it not be. equally ridiculous in us, if the com
modities of Russia were both cheaper, and better
suited to our wants, than could be found elsewhere,
to abstain from commerce with her, because she will
not receive, in return, other commodities which we
have to sell, but which she has no occasion to buy ?
Intimately connected, sir, with this topic, is ano
ther, which has been brought info the debate ; I
mean, the evil'so much complained of the exporta
tion of specie. We hear gentlemen imputing the
loss of market at home to a want of money, and this
want of money to the exportation of the precious me
tals. We hear the 1 ndia and China trade denounced,
as a commerce conducted on our side, in a great
measure, with gold and silver. These opinions, sir,
are clearly void of all just foundation, and we can
not too soon get rid of them . There are no shallower
reasoners, than those political arid commercial wri
ters, who would represent it to be the. only true and
gainful end of commerce, to accumulate the precious
metals. These are articles of use,j and articles of
merchandise, with this additional circumstance be
longing to them, that they are made, by the general
consent of nations, the standard by which the value
of all other merchandise is to be estimated. In re
gard to weights and measures, something drawn from
external nature, is made a common! standard, for the
purposes of general convenience; jand this is pre
cisely the office performed by the precious metals, in
addition to those uses to whicfy as ;metals, they are
t Marquis of Lansdowne. fLord Liverpool.
capable of being applied. There may be of these,
too much or tod little, in a country, at a particular
time, as there may be of any other articles. When
the market is overstocked with them, as it often is, their
exportation becomes as proper and as useful as that
of other commodities, under similar circumstances.
We need no more repine, when the dollars, which
have been brought here from South America, are
despatched to Other countries, than when coffee and
sugar take the same direction. We often deceive
ourselves by attributing to a scarcity of money, that
wnicn is tne result of other causes. In the course of
una debate, the honorable member from Pennsylvania
has represented the country as full of every thing
but money But this, I take to be a mistake; The
agricultural products so abundant in Pennsylvania,
will not, he says, sell for money; but they will sell
for money as quick as for any other article which
happens to be in demand. They will sell for moni
tor example, as easily as for coffee, or for tea at the
prices which properly belong to those articles! The
mistake lies in imputing that to want of money
which arises from want of demand. Men do not buy
wheat because they have money, but because they
waut wheat. To decide whetlKr money be plenty or
not, that is, whether there be a large portion of capi
tal unemployed or not, when the currency of a coun
try is metallic, we must look, not only to the prices of
commodities, but also to the rate of interest. A low
rate of interest, a facility of obtaining money on
loans, a disposition to invest in permanent stocks, all
of which are proofs that money is plenty, may never
theless often denote a state not of the highest pros
perity. They may, and often do, show a want of
employment for capital; and the accumulation of spe
cie shows the same thing. We have no occasion for
the precious metals as money, except for the purposes
of circulation, or rather of sustaining a safe paper
circulation. And whenever there be a prospect of a
profitable investment abroad, all the gold and silver,
except what these purposes require, will be exported.
For the same reason, if a demand exist abroad for
sugar and coffee, whatever amount of those articled
might exist in the country, beyond the .wants of its
own consumption, would be sent abroad to meet that
demand. Besides, sir, how should it ever occur to
any body, that we should continue to export gold and
silver, if we did .not continue to import them also?
If a vessel take our own products to the Havana, or
elsewhere, exchange them for dollars, proceed to
China, exchange them for silks and teas, bring these
last to .tne ports of the Mediterranean, sell them there
for dollars, and return to the United States; this
would be a voyage resulting in the importation of the
precious metals. "But if she had returned from Cuba,
and the dollars obtained there had been shipped di
rect from the United States to China, the China
goods sold in Holland, and the proceeds brought home
in the hemp" and iron of Russia, this would be a voy
age in which they were exported. Yet every body
sees, that both might be equally beneficial to the in
dividuals and to the public. I believe, dr. that.1 in
point of fact, we have enjoyed great benefit in our
trade with India and China, from the liberty of going
from place to place all over the world, without bein
oDiigeu mthe meantime, to return home a liberty
not. heretofore enjoyed by the private traders of Eng
land, in regard to" India and China. Suppose the
American ship to be at Brazil, for exnmnle. she
could proceed with her dollars direct to India, ahd, in
to England, and then could only proceed in the di
rect line from England to India. This advantage,
our countrymen have not beeii backward to improve;
and in the debate to which I have already so often
referred, it was stated, not without some complaint of
uie inconvenience oi exclusion, and the natural slug
gishness of monopoly, that American ships were at
that moment fitting out in the Thames, to supply
France, Holland and other countries on the conti
nent, with tea; while the East India Company
would not do this of themselves, nor allow any of
their fellow countrymen to do it for them.
There is et another subject, Mr. Chairman, upon
which I would wish to say something, if I miht pre
sume upon the continued patience of the Committee.
W e hear, sometimes, m the House, and continually
out of it, of the rate of exchange, as being one proof
that we are on the downward road to ruin. Mr.
Speaker hirriself has adverted to that topic, and I am
afraid that his authority may give credit to opinions
clearly unfounded, and which ledto very false and
erroneous conclusions. Sir, let us see what the facts
are. Exchange on England has recntly risen one-or
one and a half per cent, partly owing, perhaps, to the
introduction of this bill ; into Congress. Before this
recent rise, and for the last six months. I understand
its average may have been about seven and a half
per cent, advance. I0w, supposing this to be the
real, and not merely, as it is, the nominal par of ex
change, between us and England, what would it
prove ? Nothing, except that funds were wanted, in
England, for commercial operations, to be carried on
either m England or elsewhere. It would not neces
sarily show that we were indebted to England: for, if
we had occasion to pay debts in Russa or Holland.
funds in England would naturally enouo-h be required
lor such a purpose. And even if it did prove that a
balance was due England, at the moment, it would
have no tendency to explain to us whether our com
merce with England had been profitable or unprofita-
uie. jdui u is not true, in point ot 'tact, that the real
price oi exchange is seven and a half per centJ ad
vance, nor indeed, that there is, at the present! mo
ment, any advance at all. That is to sav. it is not
true that merchants will give such an advance, or
any auvauce, lur money in England, more than
they could give for the same amount, in the enme
currency, here. It will strike everyone, who reflects
upon it,Jhat, if there were a real difference of seven
Saiaiiaif per cent, money would be -immediately
shipped to England ; because the expense of trans
portation would be far less than that difference. Or,
commodities of trade would be shipped, to Europe,
and tne proceeds remitted to England. If it could so
happen, that American merchants, should be willing
to pay ten per cent, premium for money in England,
or in oiner words, that a real difference to that
amount, in the exchancre. should exist, ita pffpirta
would be immediately seen in new shipments of our
own commodities to Europe, because this state, of
imngs would create new motives. A cargo of tobacco
ior example, might sell at Amsterdam for the same
pnee as before ; but if its proceeds, when remitted to
Lionaon, were advanced as they would be m sucn
case ten per cent, by the state of exchange, this would
be so much added to the price, and would operatfe,
therefore, as a motive for the exportation ; and in this
way, national balances are, and always will be, ad
justed. r
To form any accurate idea of the true etate of ex
change between two countries, we must look at their
currencies, and compare the quantities of gold and
silver which they mav respectively represent. This
usually explains the state of the exchange ; and this
will satisfactorily account for the apparent advance,
now existing, on bills drawn on England. The En-o-lish
standard of value is gold; with us, that office is
Wormed by gold, and by siver also, at a fixed rela
tion to each other. But our estimate of silver is ra
ther higher, in proportion to gold," than most nations
eives it : it is higher, especially, than in England, at
1 the present moment. The consequence is, that eil ver.
7 u.uLiiut viwi i.i cm iiit; i unuus
ports of Europe, or America: while an English ship,
if a private trader, beiner at Brazil, must first return
-..-I.- : "j
which remains a legal currency with. us, stays hei$
while the gold has gone abroad ; verifying the uni
versal truth, that, if two currencies be allowed to exit,
of different values, that which is cheapest will fill tip
wnoe circulation. For as t much gold as will
suffice to pay here a debt of a given amount we can
wuj x fiuiQ more silver than; would be necessarv
to, pay the same debt here; and from this different
in the value of silver arises wholly, or in a great mea
sure, the present apparent difference in exchange.
Spanish dollars sell now, in England, for four shil
lings and nine pence sterling per ounce; equal to
one dollar and six cents. By our standard, the same
ounce is worth one dollar and sixteen cents beinc a
difference of about nine per cent. The true parol"
exchange, therefore, is nine per cent. If a merchant
here pay one hundred Spanish dollars for a bill pn
England, at nominal par, in sterling money, that is,1
for a bill for 22 10, the proceeds of this bill, when
paid in England, the legal currency, Will there pur
chase, at the present price of silver, one hundred and
nine Spanish dollars. Therefore, if the nominal ad
vance on'English bills do not exceed nine per cent,
the real exchange is not against this country ; in
other words, it does not show that there is any pres
sing or particular occasion for the remittance of funds
to England. ; -
As little can be inferred from the occasional trans
fer of United States stock 1b England. Consideringj
the interest paid on our stocks, the entire, stability of
our credit, and the accumulation of capital in Eng
land, it is not at all wonderful that investments should
occasionally be made .hi our funds. As a sort; of
countervailing fact, it may be stated that- English
stock's arc now actually holden in this country, though
probably not to any considerable amount.
I will now proceed, sir, to state some objections
which I feel, of a more general nature, to the course .
of Mr. Speaker's observations. j
He seems to me to argue the question as if all do
mestic industry were confined to the production of
manufactured articles ; as if the, employment of bur
own capital and our own labor, in the occupations of
commerce and navigation, were not as emphatically
domestic industry as any other occupation. Some
other gentlemen, in the course of! the debate have
spoken of the price paid for every foreign manufac
tured article, as so much given for the encourage
ment of foreign, labor, to the prejudice of our own.
But is not every such urticlerthe product of our own
labor as truly as if we had manufactured it ourselves ?
Our labor has earned it, and paid the priceforit. Ir
is so much added to the stock of national wealth. If
the commodity were dollar?, nobody would doubt the
truth of this remark ; and it is precisely as correct hi
its application to any other commodity as to silver.
One man makes a yard of cloth at home; another
raises agricultural products, and buys a yard of im
ported cloth. Both these are equally the earnings of
domestic industry, and the only questions that arisk
in. the case are two: the first is, Avhich is the best
mode, under all the circumstances, of obtaining' the
articles; the second is, how far this first question is
proper to be decided by government, and how far
it is proper to be left to individual discretion,
There is no foundation for the distinction whiclt at
tributes to certain employments the peculiar appella
tion of American industry; and it is, in my judg
ment, extremely unwise, to attempt such discrimina
tions. 'We are asked what nations have ever attained
eminent prosperity without encouraging manufac
tures? I may as what nation ever reached the like
prosperity without promoting foreign trade? I re
gard these interests as closely connected, and arh of
opinion that it should be our aim to cause them to
nounsii together. 1 know it would be very easy to
promote manufactures, at least for a tinle, hut proba
bly only for a short time,'if we might act in disre
gard of other interests. We could cause a sudden
transfer of capital, and a violent change in the pur
suits c. men. We could exceedingly benefit some
classes by these means. But what, then, becomes of
the interests of others ? The power of collecting
revenue by duties on Imports, and the habit of the
government of collecting almost its whole revenue in
that mode, ' will enable us, without exceeding the
bounds of moderation, to give great advantages ta
those classes of manufactures which we may think;
most uselul to promote at home. What 1 object to is
the immoderate use of the power exclusions and
prohibitions;: all of which, as I think, not only inter-
1 .. i; j i . .
iujjl me pursuits ui uiuiviauais, wnn great injury to
themselves, and little or'no benefit to the country, bur
also often divert our own labor, or, as it may very
propeny be called, our own domestic industry, lrom
those1 occupations in which it is well employed and
well paid, to others, m which lfwiil be worse em
ployed, and worse paid. Foe my part, I 'see very
little relief to those who are likely to be deprived of
their, employments, or who find! the prices of the com
modities vhich they need, raised, in any of the alter
natives which Mr. Speaker has presented. It is no
thing to say that they may, if they choose, continue
to buy the foreign articles; the answer is, the price
is augmented : nor that they may use the domestic
article; the price of that also is increased. -Nor can
they supply themselves by the substitution of their
own fabric. How can the agriculturist maWhis own
iron ? How can the ship owner grow his own hemp ?
But I have yet a stronger objection to the course of
Mr. Speaker's reasoning; which is, that he leaves out
of the case all that has been already dorke for the pro
tection of manufactures, and argues the question ad if
those interests were now, for the first time, to receive,
aid from duties on imports. I can hardly express the
surprise I feel that Mr.- Speaker should fall into the
common modes of expression used ekewhere, and ask
if we will give our manufacturers no protection. Sir,
look to the history of our laws ; I.wk to the present
state of our laws. Consider that our whole revenue,
with a trifling exception, is collected at the custom
house, and always has been ; and then say what pro
priety there is in calling on the government for pro
tection, as if no protection had heretofore been afford
ed. The real question before us, in regard to all
the important clauses in the bill, is not whether we I
will lay duties, but whether we will augment duties.
The demand is for something more than exists, and
yet it is pressed as if nothing existed.- It is wholly
forgotten that iron and hemp, for example, already
pay a very heavy and burdensome duty,; and, in
short, from the general tenor of Mr. Speaker's obser
vations, one would infer that, hitherto, we had rather
taxed our own manufactures than fostered them by
taxes on those of other countire3. We hear of the
fatal policy of the tariff of 1816 ; yet the law of 181 S
was passed avowedly for the benefit of manufacturers, .
and, with very few exceptions, imposed on imported
articles very great additions of tax. inTsome impor
tant instances, indeed, amounting to a prohibition. ,
Sir, on this subiect it becomes us at least to under
stand the real posture of the question. Let Us not
suppose that we are beginning thelprotection of ma-
nuiactures, by duties on imports, wnat we are asnea .
to do is, to render those duties much higher, and
therefore, instead of dealing in general commenda
tions oi the benefits oi protection, the inenas oi
bill, I think, are bound to make out a lair
each of the manufactures which they propose to bene
fit. The government has already done much lor
their protection, and it ought to be presumed to, ta e
done enough unless it is to be
and considerations applicable to each, that there is a
necessity for doing more. . v;
To be concluded zn our next.)
i-