{"newspaper_name": "Mobile register and journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5751, "word_count": 982, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9470000267028809], "ccnet_perplexity": [1389.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
nd navigation harras set as ey may te by foreign restrictions, diminishing he amount of eSrhang@,- ble products which they could otherwise purchass abroad, are urdened with heavier impoHitIons at I,me Nor will augmented duties here lead 10 reduction of foreign tarifs; but the reverse, by furnishing the protected classes there with the den- lical argument used by the protected classes here against reduction. By counieryailng restrictions. we iniure our fellow citizens much more than the foreign nation at whom purpose To aim their force and, in the caulci of opposing tariffs, we sacrifice our commerce, agriculture. and navigation. As well might We impose monarehial or aristoeralc restrictions on oar go, ,ernment or peo- ple bcrause that Is the course of foreign iegisia- ton. Let our commerce be AS free our political institutions. Let us, with revenue duties only, open our ports tn all the world, and nation after nation will soon follow our example, If we reduce our tariff, the party opposed 10 the corn laws Ol England wonld soon prevail, and admit all our agricultural products at all times freely into her ports, m exchange for her exports. And if Eng land would now repeal her duties upon our Wheat flour, Indian corn and other agricultural products, onr own re- sirctye sSstem would cerlaply be doomed to overthrow If the question is asked, Who shall be- sin ths work of riciprocal reduction! Il Is answered by the fact that Eng has already abated her du ties ugon mos, of our exports She has repealed the duty upon cotton, and greatly reduced the tariff upon ou breadstuds, provlsluns, and other articles; and her present bad harvest, accOmpan jed by re- ducion of our tariff. would lead 10 the repeal of her corn laws, and the unrestricted admission, at all times, ol our agricultural products. The nanufac- turing interest opposes reciprocal free trade with foreign nations IL opposed the Zoll Verein treaty; and II is feared that other treaty producing reciprocal reduction of our own and foreign tariffs will receive it's support. If that interest preferred

 reciprocal exchange of our own for foreign fabrics at revenue duties, it would have not desired Il tariff aperaiin9, without exception, against all tons that adapted law, well as high tariffs; would il have opposed every amendment proposing, when inc ,ari0 of lSi2 under consideration ducon of our duties upon the exports of such nations as would receive, free of duty, our flour and other agricultural products. if that interest desired rec iproca free trade with other nations, il would have desired very different tariff from that of 1842 IL would have sought To con6ne ihe high duties To those cases where the foreign importer would sell his imports for each only; and admitted drawback of one half of tine duty where American exports would be taken abroad in exchang m actual barter of foreign import slor eqnaaIuount in value of our products but without any barter, where d equal 10 the value of their exports was used in pur chas ing here equal amount in value of any oi our producs and the shipment made abroad of these products, upon the same principle under which drawback ot duties is allowed on the re.expor- aton of foreign imports.

 This would be less simple. and is not recommends ed in lieu of that absolute reduction of the duties, which will accomplish the object of unresirct ed exchange. Bu such provision would be "A self

 

 those believing in couutervailing tariffs against for eign nations, but in reciprocal free trade with all thus enabling our farmers and planters tosei their products for cheaper foreign manufactures. getting more for what they sell, and paying less for what they purchase in exchange. IL seems strange, that while the profit of agriculture varies from 10 per cent, that oi manufactures IS more than doubie.- The reason is, that whilst the high duties secure nearly monopoly of the home market to the nanu- lac,urer, ihe farmer and planter are deprived to great extent of the foreign market by these duties The tariff is thus double benefit to the manulactur- CT, and double loss 10 the farmer and planier-a benefit to the former, in nearly monopoly oi ihe home market, and in enhanced prices ol the r iab- rcs, and loss the atter in the payment of those high prices. and in total or partial exclusion from the fore ign market. The true question is, whether the farmer and planter sha 10 great extent, sup | ply our people with cheap manufactures, purchased abroad with their agricultural products whether

 hs exchange shall be foi bdden by high duties on such manufactures, and their supply thrown, as a monopoly, at large prices. by high tariffs, into the hands Q. our own manufacturers. The number ol manufacturing capitalists who derive the benefit | from the heavy taxes extracted by the tarih from

 twenty millions of people, does not exceed ten thou sand. The whole number (ncluding the working classes engaged in our manuiaciures) deriving any benefit from the tariff, does not exceed 400 900, ol whom not more than 43, ,000 have been brought into this pursuit by the last tarf But the small number Of Al, ,000 would still have been in the country, con sumne agricultural products, and in the attempt

 10 secure them pur alIasers. so small in number, and not consuming one half of the supply of many countries, the farmers and planter asked 10 rifce the markets of the world, containing Popua ton of eight hundred millions, d1abed from par- chasing our products by high duties all they would sell in exchange. The farmer and planter | would have the home market without a tariff, and | they would have the foreign market also 10 much greater extent. but for the total or partial prohibit | ton of the tariff. .