USA > Indiana > Early Indiana trials: and sketches. Reminiscences > Part 29
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62
307
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
MONOPOLISTS,
Say our leading, Democratie, free-trade men, and they as Democrats, are opposed to all monopolies. If this were so, it were indeed a gen- erous objection ; but ean there be a monopoly in any trade or busi- ness, whether it be a cotton or woollen manufactory, a mechanie's establishment, a mercantile concern, or a house of public entertain- ment, so long as these employments are left open alike to the eompe- tition, capital, and industry of all ? Will not capital find its level in its investment, and is it pretended that any particular business can enjoy an excess of profit in a country like this, open to free competi- tion ? If one employment is more profitable than another, others will immediately resort to it. If the Washington Hall is supposed to be making too much money as a house of entertainment, there arises at the next square the Palmer House to divide it. If a cotton fac- tory at Richmond is supposed to be doing well, Mr. West establishes an extensive cotton factory at Indianapolis to share the market and divide the profits. Let us suppose that these manufactures are, as the leading modern free-trade Democrats contend, odious monopolies, will it be contended that the British manufactures are less so? Most certainly not ; but, on the contrary, if a large amount of capital con- centrated at a given point, and employed in a single manufactory, constitutes a monopoly, then the British manufactories as far surpass ours, as the amount of their investments exceed ours. The question " then arises, seeing that we have to sustain manufacturing monopolies at last, which shall we maintain and support, the American monopoly that purchases our corn, beef, pork, flour, and other agricultural pro- duets, to support the labor of our own citizens, while they manufac- ture our cotton, wool, fax, hemp, and other materials that enter into the different articles in domestic use, or the British monopoly, sus- tained by British labor, British raw materials, and British produce, to be paid for either by American gold or silver or American produce, after deducting a heavy duty to be paid by the American producers ? We ask a candid answer. But it is said that the British manufactured ar:icles may be bought cheaper than the same article can be made for here ; and hence it is argued that the tariff should be reduced. We have already stated how this matter stands, but let us illustrate it here again :
Whether an article is cheap or dear depends upon circumstances; the price may be low, and yet the medium of payment render it dear. At the present time, a farmer can afford to pay a higher nominal price for any article, in the produce of the farm, than he could get the same
308
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
article for in money ; the one he has to spare, and the other he has not. A farmer and a hatter join lands, the farmer needs hats for his use, and the hatter needs corn, beef, and pork for his family ; it suits these persons to exchange these articles. Now it is not very material what price either puts on his articles-it is but an exchange at last ; but suppose at the moment that these industrious men were making the exchange, a pedlar should drive up with a load of English hats, and offer to sell one to the farmer for fifty cents less than the hatter asked for his, but required cash, instead of produce, in payment ; would the farmer, by taking the cash from his drawer and paying for his hat, while his produce lay upon his hands without a market, get the article cheaper than if he had bought it from his neighbor? But suppose he had in fact bought the hat for fifty cents less than his neighbor asked, and was able to sell his produce, so as to replace the cash he had paid out for the hat, how then would the account stand next year ? The hatter must quit his business because his customers could buy cheaper hats ; of course, he must turn farmer. The amount of produce would be doubled, and so would the demand for hats. The pedlar arrives again with his British hats; he now has two families to supply instead of one ; his competitor has been driven from his busi- ness to farming, by the cheap hats, and he now puts not only the other half dollar on the price of his hats, but adds fifty per cent., so that in the two years the farmer has paid a higher nominal price for hats than if he had bought them from his neighbor, and the price of his produce has been diminished by the increased quantity raised by two farmers instead of one.
Our limits will not permit us to give the many cases that might be put to sustain our position. We leave the reader to supply the defi- cieney, and proceed to inquire whether a protective tariff gives to the farmer, for his agricultural products,
A HOME MARKET.
This is an important question, but it is not a new one ; it has for many years engaged the time and talents of the best men and ablest statesmen of every civilized nation on earth ; we have the experience of ages, and the enlightened views of the statesmen of most countries, to aid us in coming to a just conclusion. The writer of the pamphlet, to which this side refers, treats the idea as a fallaey. He says: "Those who contend that it will, say that there are too many tilling the carth, and that we must hire some of them to manufacture, by promising to give them more for the articles than we should have to give to others." For this statement we have the word of the writer of the address.
309
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
We have not seen the assertion coming from any friend of a protee- tive tariff; it is the language of the anti-tariff, free-trade, British school, utterly denied by the friends of protection. As we prefer to give the grounds of the belief upon which we maintain the affirmative of the position in the least questionable shape, we will introduce to the reader a few witnesses upon this point, and then present some brief views of our own. We have already presented extraets from Mr. Jef- ferson, fully sustaining our position, we add the following, written by him in reply to Mr. Austin, in 1816, after the late war. " You tell me I am quoted by those who wish to continue our dependence on England for manufactures ! there was a time when I could have been so quoted with candor. * * We must now place the manufac- turer by the side of the agriculturalist." Why so, Mr. Jefferson? The answer is obvious ; that they may be a mutual benefit to each other ; the one furnishing the agricultural products, and the other the manufactured articles in exchange.
MR. CALHOUN,
In 1816, was the champion of a protective tariff, and one of his strong grounds was, that it created a home market for agricultural products. Ile said : " When our manufactures are grown to a certain perfection, as they soon will under the fostering care of Government, we will no longer experience those evils. The farmer will find a ready market for his surplus produce, and what is of almost equal consequence, a certain and cheap supply of all his wants."
MR. GALLATIN,
The practical statesman and distinguish financier, long at the head of the Treasury Department, may be introduced to the reader upon this question with advantage. It was in 1810 the extract was written, and the reader will of course make the allowance for the increase since, but he will find the position fully sustained. Mr. Gallatin, in his able report to Congress, urging the protection of our manufactures, estimated the annual product of American manufactures to exceed $120,000,000, and that the raw materials used, and the provisions and other articles, the produce of the United States consumed by the manu- facturers, created a market at home for our agricultural productions, not much inferior to that which arose from the whole foreign demand.
MR. DALLAS,
Secretary of the Treasury, who was also one of the Fathers of the Republican party, in his very able report in 1816, says : " The agri-
310
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
culturalist whose produce and whose flocks depend for their value upon the fluctuations of a foreign market, will have no occasion eventually to regret the opportunity of a ready sale for his wool or his cotton, in his own neighborhood, and it will soon be understood that the success of American manufacturers, which tends to diminish the profits, often the excessive profits, of the importer, does not necessarily add to the price of the article in the hands of the consumer."
MR. MADISON,
In his annual message in 1815, urges the protective policy in strong language. " It will be an additional recommendation for particular manfactures, when the materials for them ure extensively drawn from our agriculture, and consequently impart and insure to that great fund of national prosperity and independence, an encouragement which ean not fail to be rewarded."
We might fill a volume with extracts from the messages of our Presidents, from the Father of his Country down, from the reports of the Secretaries of the Treasury, and the speeches of our distinguished statesmen of all parties, sustaining fully our position ; but we forbear to press the evidence further, except to give one more extract from a document that is too important to be omitted. We call the atten- tion of the original Jackson men to it; we ask them to compare it with the pamphlet written by one who professed to be his follower, even in the proclamation against the nullifiers, but who now joins hands with these same nullifiers in opposition to the doctrines on this subject maintained by
GENERAL JACKSON.
In his letter to Dr. Coleman, dated on the 26th of April, 1824, he speaks on this subject the language of an American-the language of truth and sound wisdom. He says : " I ask what is the real situation of the agriculturalist? Where has the American farmer a market for his surplus produce ? Except for cotton, he has neither a foreign nor a home market. Does not this clearly prove when there is no market at home or abroad, that there is too much labor employed in agriculture ? Common sense at onee points out the remedy. Take from agriculture in the United States, 600,000 men, women and children ; and you will at once give a market for more bread-stuff's than all Europe now furnishes us. In short, sir ; are have been too long subject to the policy of British merchants ; it is time we should become a little more Americanized ; and instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of England, feed our own, or else in a short time (by continuing our
311
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
present policy), we shall be rendered paupers ourselves." In the letter of Gen. Jackson to Gov. Ray in 1828, he re-affirmed and adopted with approbation this letter and its doctrines. And yet, to all this the new allies of the Jackson party turn up their noses and sneeringly remark that those who contend that a protective tariff, will create a home mar- ket for our produce, say " that there are too many engaged in tilling the earth, and that we must hire some of them to manufacture by promising to give them more for their articles than we should have to give others." With what grace does the writer of the pamphlet cast this stigma on the motives and policy of Gen. Jackson, we leave the people to say.
NUMBER OF MANUFACTURES.
The writer of the address says : "The census of 1840 shows, that there were engaged in trade and manufactures in the United States, including every description of mechanics, white and black, slave and free, only 791,742; while the number of the tillers of the soil was 3,719,951." From this he argues, that the home market is inconsid- erable in comparison with the agricultural products, and therefore not worth preserving or protecting. Let us see how this matter stands. He must concede that the 791,749 are supported upon American pro- duce, and are engaged in the manufacture of the American raw material ; suppose we transplant them to Europe and buy their manu- factured articles ; whose produce would they then consume - whose raw materials would they then operate upon ? Not ours, but European, as restrictions are thrown around the introduction of our articles, and in that event, we should lose to the farming interest, the market for all the raw materials, and all the produce that these 791,749 persons would consume ; or if we fed them and furnished the raw materials, it would be under their tariff.
But this is not all, you can not transplant the men, women and children, you can only drive them from their employment to agricul- tural pursuits, and then after having lost the market for the produce and raw materials consumed by the 791,749 persons, you add that number to 3,719,951 now engaged in agriculture ; making the agricul- turalists 4,511,700, and increasing the agricultural products and affect- ing the price in the same proportion. But even this is not all; the moment you have driven your own tradesmen and manufacturers from their employment, foreigners left without competition, here, would make you pay their own price for their articles, and exact what they please in payment. Let us make an estimate of this: for round num- bers, says 800,000 manufacturers to the agricultural interest of the United States ; at a very low calculation they must consume each of
-
312
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
agricultural products at least the value of fifty dollars per annum : this amounts to
House rent and fuel,
$40,000,000 12,000,000
$52,000,000
Making $52,000,000 annually in these items, without looking to the more important and costly ones of the raw materials, wages of lahor and other domestie articles which enter into the price of the manu- factured articles ; these we leave for the reader to estimate. These are some of the gains to the agricultural interest, by having the seat of the manufactures in this country, instead of England, where our lead- ing free-trade modern Democrats desire to transplant them, or are wil- ling to see them transplanted by the operation of their policy of
FREE TRADE.
This is certainly in sound, a most fascinating doctrine-free-trade- who could oppose it ? say our opponents. It only means to sell where we can sell highest, and buy where we can buy cheapest, say its advo- cates. Such is their definition of free-trade. A British lord recently gave another definition that suited him better ; it was, freedom of bar- ter and sale of British goods in the ports of other nations, and high duties and restrictions in British ports of the produce of these nations. We would give it still another definition as being more applicable to the actual state of the case; it is the surrender by the United States of the right to other nations, to control the industry of this by their legislation ; for if we omit to pass protective laws, we may preach free-trade as much as we please, and it will avail us nothing; the pro- ducts of other nations will press down upou us, until our labor will be brought to three-pence a day, and our produce to prices ruinous to the farmer, while not a port of any other country will be relaxed in the duties and restrictions imposed upon our produce. One error of this free-trade school consists in this : that they forget that we have no power to legislate for other countries. As well might a farmer declare in favor of free-grazing of cattle, and open his gates and take away his fences from his pasture-fields, while all his neighbors secured and protected their pastures by good fenees ; we need not tell our far- mers how they would come out with such a project in the end. The principle is the same-that of self-protection, and so long as all the civilized nations of the earth keep up their restrictions and duties, just so long we must meet them on the same platform, or sink under the weight of their legislation. Upon this part of our inquiry, we might quote all the distinguished statesmen of the nation, who have
313 1
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
taken part in our political affairs. We deem it, however, unnecessary to do so.
There is one distinguished American who has not been heretofore prominently before the people, whose opinions are entitled to much weight ; it is, therefore, with pleasure that we give an extract from a letter, written by the hero of Lundy's Lane,
GENERAL SCOTT.
Recently, to a committee, the General says : "from a familiarity with the principal writers on political economy, I was early much smitten with the doctrines of free-trade; but between the years 1824 and 1828, being stimulated by the discussions of the period to recon- sider first impressions, I soon became thoroughly persuaded that that theory of wealth, however beautiful, would impoverish this coun- try in its free-trade with the many, whose rival products are shielded by duties generally high, and in many cases prohibitory ; until, there- fore, the other great commercial nations can be forced to practice upon, as well as to propagate in speeches and writings, these liberal doc- trines, I should be in favor of countervailing and retaliatory duties at home." The force and justice of the views of Gen. Seott will appear most manifest from an examination of the following extract from the
BRITISH TARIFF.
ARTICLES.
OF OR FROM BRITISH POSSESSIONS.
FOREIGN PRODUCE.
Bacon, per cwt,
3
6
about { 0 per lb. 14 0 about 2
per Ib.
Beef salted, not being corned beef, per cwt ..
2
0
about 0 4 per 1b.
8
0 about 1} per Ib.
Tougues, per cwt ..
2
6
about 3 0 per 1b. 10
0 about 2 per Ib.
Butter, per ewt.
5
0
about 1 0 per Ib. 20
O nearly 4 per İb.
Cheese, per cwt.
2
6
about $ 0 per lb. 10
6 a little over 2 cts. per 1b.
Eggs, per 120
0
23 n't quite 1 0 for 2 dozen.
0 10 about 22 per doz.
Hams of all kinds, per cwt.
3
6 nearly & 0 per lb. 14 0 about
22 per İb.
Lard, per cw
0
6
not 0 1 per Ib.
2 0 about
per Ib.
Pork salted, not ham, per cwt.
2
0 about 0 4 per lb.
0 about 22 per Ib.
Cranberries, per gallon.
0 1 about 15 pr. bus.
Pot or pearl ashes
Free
0 6 when for homo consumption.
Oil-seed cakes, per ton.
1 10 or 22 cents.
Linseed, per cwt ..
0 1 or 12 cents.
Rapeseed, per cwt ..
0 1 or 12 cents.
Beeswax, per cwt.
2
0 or
44 0.
1 0 or 22 cents.
Stearine candles.
0
2} or ahout 4 cts.
Tallow, per cwt.
3 2 nearly &
0 per İb.
0 3 or about 5} cts.
Castor oil
1
3 about }
0 per lb.
Cotton.
8 cents per cwt ...
72 cents per cwt.
s.
D.
C. M.
S. D. C.
314
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
We wish our readers to examine this table, taken from the able report of Mr. Ellsworth, commissioner of patents. Although it does not contain many articles of American export, still it gives a fair average of British duties on American products. Such is the practice of the free-trade school of Great Britain, and yet the leaders of the modern Democratic party in Indiana would meet these restrictions and discriminations with free trade in our ports, unless for revenue ; and even then, as we have shown, their doctrine Icads to direct taxes to raise it. That there should be found advocates for this doctrine, in Indiana, is passing strange; from the Southern cotton-planter it might be more reasonably expected. He may reason after this wise :
WHY IS THE COTTON PLANTER FOR FREE-TRADE ?
May he not answer the question by saying ; " My staple is cotton ; the home market is secured to me for the article, by a duty of three cents per pound, about fifty per cent ad valorem ; my crop is made by my own slave labor; I only pay seventy-two cents per cwt. duty on the crop in England, while the produce of bacon pays two dollars per ewt. ; my cotton is worth six dollars per cwt. in Charleston, the bacon of Indiana is worth four dollars per cwt. at New Orleans; so that I pay one dollar and eighteen cents less for six dollars worth of my pro- duce than the farmer of Indiana pays for four dollars worth of his. The price of my cotton in the English market does not depend upon the price of the products of Indiana, upon which I feed my slaves to make the crop, hence my policy is to bring down the price of meats and bread-stuffs, or slave food, as low as possible, which will give me the greatest profit on the crop ; and to do this I require free-trade, or low tariffs of duties on British manufactured articles, so as to enable them to give me more for my cotton, to sell to us again manufactured ; while, by the same operation, slave food is brought down to the lowest price by the destruction of the home market, and the increase of pro- duce, turning our manufacturers into farmers." Would this reasoning satisfy an Indiana farmer that such was his poliey, even if it should the British and Southern free-trade school.
HIGH TARIFFS PRODUCE SMUGGLING.
This objection is frequently urged against high tariffs. The writer . of the pamphlet has but repeated the arguments of others on this point. That reckless persons and frechooters should be willing to risk the consequences of forfeiting their goods in an attempt to evade the vigilance of our revenue officers, is, perhaps, to be expected, whether the rates of duties be high or low. Little prejudice to the
315
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
revenue, however, was experienced from that source, by the Govern- ment, under the high tariff duties of 1828, as the amount of revenue collected at that period will satisfactorily demonstrate. However, with this very position of the danger of smuggling in his mouth, the writer introduees the low duties imposed by the tariff of 1842, on jewelry, etc., articles that are of little weight and bulk, and of great value, which to the amount of thousands of dollars could be smuggled about the person of each passenger from abroad, and intimates that the low duties imposed was to benefit the rich, when he must have known that it was to get some revenue from these articles of import, and, if possible, to make them contribute something to the National Treasury. What had become of his dread of smuggling when he con- demned Congress for not levying higher duties on such articles ? the effect of which would have been to place the whole trade in the hands of smugglers. It is easy to find fault with a particular duty on a selected article, without knowing the reasons for its imposition, as the writer of the pamphlet is well aware, which might have prompted him to seek for some other motive than the unworthy one he charges, for the imposition of a low duty ou these articles. He seems hard to please.
MARKET THROUGH CANADA.
The free-trade modern Democratic party point us to the channel through Canada to the British market, and tell us here is free-trade for the produce of the North-Western States. This is one of their opposing arguments to the doctrines of protection, and the necessity of fostering an American market for American produce. We will briefly examine this boasted boon. We have given a table showing the duties levied in England on American as well as Colonial produce. The following extracts from high authority, will place the matter in its true light : "The colonists have been incessantly urging the demand on the mother country, for free admission of their bread- stuffs, but have heen denied this boon on the ground that such an arrangement would enable Americans to send in their grain free from duty ; accordingly, last session of the Canadian Parliament a duty of 3s. sterling per imperial quarter, or 42d. sterling per impe- rial bushel was imposed on American wheat, which act was reserved for the assent of the Imperial Government, that unless the latter admit Canadian grain free of duty the act will not take effect. The provincial Parliament will probably impose duties on fresh meat, on cattle, and all sorts of grain ; the articles of pot or pearl ashes, flax, hemp, hams, bacon, hay, hides and meat pay an additional duty to that levied by Sir Robert Peel's tariff under the provincial aet. If
316
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
the new law enacted by the Canadian Government goes into operation in July next, the following will be the duties charged on American produce landed in Liverpool in British vessels; with regard to pro- visions, a duty of 3s. per cwt. has been imposed on salted meat, Ss. on butter, 5s. on cheese, and 2s. per barrel on flour. These duties are all paid in sterling money, at the rate of 4s. 4d. the dollar, equal to 5s. 1d. Canadian currency, or nearly 102 cents. (See Mr. Ellsworth's valuable report.) This is the Boox, should the English Parliament accede to it, that we are to receive for 'free trade' in our ports of British goods. This trade is to pass through Canada, we are to pay the duty to the Canadian Government instead of the English Govern- ment ; our wheat is to be ground at their mills; the flour is to be car- ried by their conveyances at our expense, to their ports, and then to be shipped to England in British Vessels, excluding our vessels altogether. Such is the political view of free-trade in Great Britain."
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
The writer of the pamphlet thought proper to quote Mr. Adams to prove that in a series of years the imports and exports between this country and Great Britain have nearly balanced ; this he introduces as an argument to show that it is not necessary to protect and foster our American market for American produce. That proposition, inclu- ding bullion and specie, may be admitted for the sake of the argument without prejudice to our positions. The imports or exports or trade, between two countries may balance cach year, and yet the one impoverish the other in the operation. The yearly account current is generally balanced between the master and servant, while the one rides in his coach and the other is covered with rags; so with the landlord and tenant, the farmer and his laborer, the manufacturer and his operatives ; still one may be enriched and the other impover- ished by the terms and modes of adjusting and balancing the account. A farmer huys British goods of a merchant, for which he agrees to pay fifty dollars in produce in the fall : the time for payment arrives, the farmer calls with his produce, and is informed that the price of wheat is ten cents per bushel, corn six cents and other produce in pro- portion ; the payment is made at these prices, but the whole year's labor of the farmer is exhausted ; the merchant has made a profit on the goods-the imports from the store, and the exports from the farm have precisely balanced ; still the farmer is impoverished. About 623 per cent of all the exports of this country to England is in the article of cotton, at something like eight cents per pound, while the return imports consist of manufactured goods, at from 500 to 2000
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.