ven who, while he sanctified himself to be our Saviour, from the guilt of our sin, brought all the beauty and strength of divinity to adorn his example of a perfect man; and now, from the far heaven of his reward, yet regards with a brother's eye, and assists by Almighty strength, every sincere soul that seeks to tread in his footsteps and trusts in his grace. He will be your friend if you are his. As my parting counsel, let me then entreat that you allow no day to pass without spending some due portion of time in meditating on the sacred word, and asking the blessed intercession of Jesus, the Son of God. He that can find no leisure for this, must make strange estimates; for what," I ask you as men of business to make the calculation," WHAT IS A

MAN PROFITED IF HE GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD AND LOSE HIS OWN SOUL."

ART. IV. " COMMERCE AND PROTECTION."

To the Editor of the Merchants' Magazine:

I FIND in a late Charleston Mercury an article which purports to have appeared originally in the Democratic Review at Washington, in replication to mine in an early number of the Merchants' Magazine. As the logic of this criticism, review, or whatever it may be termed, appears to me considerably less than irresistible, I am again induced to trespass on your patience and that of the readers of the Magazine.

My antagonist, with a liberality and courtesy quite characteristic of the "free trade" school of political economists, commences by hinting his "surprise" that such an article as mine, or any advocating protection, should have been suffered to appear in a mercantile magazine, and proceeds to complain of my "want of logical acumen and legitimate deduction,” and with magisterial nod decides that my article is "better fitted for the arena of a debating society than for the pages of a philosophical journal." He is welcome to his manners. I did not contemplate any thing more than a simple recapitulation of the heads of argument in favor of protection, leaving the outline to be filled up by the reader's own reflections. But with what grace is a want of "logical acumen" complained of by a reviewer, who opens his argument as follows: "it would, at the outset, appear that the object of the article is merely a defence of the tariff as a means of raising revenue." Seems so, does it? To whom? To the critic, we must presume; but it can hardly have seemed so to any one else, when "Commerce and Protection" was the title of my essay, and every paragraph of it was aimed directly at this point-that judicious Protecting Duties, do not operate injuriously on the interests of commerce. But again: in the next paragraph, my reviewer asserts that silks, wines, and some other luxuries, are admitted free of duty, while cottons, which are worn principally by the poorer classes, are charged twenty-five per cent. ; and proceeds to exclaim "thus the poverty of the poor is disproportionately taxed, while the abundance of the rich is comparatively untouched." This is a specimen of the "logical acumen" of a writer, who eschews my remarks as calculated "for the declamatory arena of a debating society." Because under our present tariff-which is a Compromise and not a Protective one, and was last modified by a Congress hostile to Protection-silks are admitted free of duty, (while I wish they were taxed fifty per cent.,) and cottons charged twenty-five per cent., the infer

ence-nay, the evidence-is resistless, that Protecting Duties essentially and necessarily favor the rich at the expense of the poor! Admirable logic!

My reviewer next accuses me of "begging the question," in assuming that Protective Legislation may stimulate the great producing interests of a country to a higher activity. In his view, this is the very gist of the question. I am quite content to have it so, but without admitting that I begged this point in my former article. Let me now adduce some illustrative examples: we all know that certain bounties are paid by our government to our citizens engaged in the cod and mackerel fisheries; will my opponent contend that no more fish are caught than there would be if no bounty were given? Again until very recently, Maine was principally a timber-cutting and commercial state; her bread-stuffs being in great part purchased from abroad. In 1836 (I believe) her Legislature enacted that a bounty should be paid thereafter to the producers of wheat within her territory. Under the operation of that act, in the course of two or three years, the annual production of wheat in Maine has been quadrupled. Now my opponent will not deny that this act is clearly a protective one, and directly in the teeth of the "Free Trade" principles which Maine has ever professed to cherish. It is an instance of the plainest and least equivocal kind of Protection. There can be no denying the fact, that the amount of wheat produced has vastly increased under the operation of that act-that in all human probability the act was the impelling cause, in great part, of the increase. So far, we can hardly differ. My opponent, then, has no chance of escape from the natural conclusion, but through the presumption that the skill and labor employed in the production of the wheat, has been diverted from some other equally profitable employment-that therefore Maine has gained nothing by her Protective policy. But is this presumption justified by fact? Will any man seriously contend that if Maine had not raised the two millions of bushels extra of wheat during the last three years, she would necessarily have produced something in its stead, of equal, or greater value? I trust not.

Take another illustration-that of silk. We now import this article to the value of some twenty millions per annum. Suppose that, instead of admitting it free of duty, (which my reviewer strangely instances as a feature of protection,) we could, by imposing a duty of fifty cents per pound on the raw material, and one dollar on its manufactures, ensure a domestic production of the whole amount required within five years-does any man believe that such production would necessarily cause a reduction, to an equal or greater amount, of the other productions of the country? I cannot. I think the annual increase of the national wealth thereby ensured, would be at least ten millions.

But let us hear the reviewer again: "It is stated that our manufacturers compete successfully with Europeans in the South American and Chinese markets, but that, if they were unprotected at home, they would be unable to do so. The fact in the first part of the sentence we admit; the correctness of the assumption at its conclusion we unequivocally deny.

"If we successfully compete with European manufactures in foreign markets, it is because we can produce goods, and carry them to market, as cheaply as our competitors: and, in this case, we must inevitably cut them out of the home market entirely, and can therefore require no protection."

Now here is one of those instances of reasoning from plausible but mistaken theory, rather than fact, on which the entire " Free Trade" system is

founded. Nothing can look fairer than the above logic to those whose whole acquaintance with the matter is purely theoretical; and yet it is directly in the face of every days' experience. Let me illustrate: England and America are competitors in supplying the world with cotton fabrics; each has brought its machinery for manufacturing them to great perfection; each can produce them at about an equal cost-we will say, an ordinary fabric for six cents a yard. Each sells largely to other nations. But by some means, England finds herself with a heavy excess of manufactured goods on handsay twenty millions' worth. What shall she do? To throw them on the market at home, or where she usually sells, is to create a glut, and depress prices-perhaps permanently; this will not answer. There is a scheme worth two of it: ship them to New York; rattle them off under the auctioneer's hammer-perhaps for three fourths of their intrinsic value. what of this? The home market and the foreign market have both been preserved intact, while her rivals in the manufacture have been embarrassed and crippled by the depression and derangement of their home market. But can we not retaliate? Not we. England preaches Free Trade for foreign consumption; she is too wise to adopt it as the basis of her own policy. My opponent's assertion that "Free Trade principles" are acted on in England, because there is a considerable, but very decided minority, averse to the corn laws, &c., &c., will carry conviction to none but minds of extraordinary "logical acumen." " What she would do under other circumstances, I do not assume to judge; what she does I think I understand—and it is at least as far from "Free Trade" as any theory ever advocated in this country.

But

A striking exemplification of the inherent fallacy of "Free Trade logic," is afforded by my reviewer. In one paragraph which I have quoted, he distinctly admits the fact that our manufacturers [of cottons especially] rival those of England in the open markets of the world, and therefore, that those goods are produced and sold here as cheaply as in Great Britian. But in another paragraph he lights upon the fact that foreign cottons are charged twenty-five per cent. by our existing tariff; and he straightway assumes that they must be twenty-five per cent. dearer here than in England, and that the "poorer classes" of this country pay a tax of twenty-five per cent. on their cottons for the benefit of the manufacturer ! Need I add a word of comment ?

But my opponent holds that "individuals understand their own business better than legislatures, and that consequently, if uninfluenced by legislative interference, they will direct their labor and capital into the most profitable channel"-and this idea he deems so pertinent and forcible, that he repeats it under several variations of phraseology.

Now, if we were proposing for the first time in the world's history to establish Protective laws, there might be as much soundness as smartness in this well-turned sentence. Its fatal error, however, lies in the mistaken assumption, that if we eschewed Protection, our producing interests would never be affected by "legislative interference." It were just as rational in an individual to fancy that he had no need of the protection of any laws at all-if he let other men's property and persons alone, they would certainly do no less by his. The whole theory of Free Trade partakes of the child's fancy, that, when his eyes are shut, nobody can see him.-But my reviewer has a paragraph on this subject; let us consider it :

"It has been sometimes urged that it will be impolitic to remove our restrictions, so long as other nations continue theirs. We must however con

fess that we cannot see the policy of suffering another man's folly to be master over our wit.' If other countries choose to pursue a course of policy hurtful to themselves, is there any reason why we should follow in their footsteps, for the sake of reciprocating an injury."

Now leaving the critic to "beg the question," that this course of policy in other nations is "hurtful to themselves," we will furnish a parallel to his logic. Let us suppose some of the "Non-Resistent" theorists, who hold all war to be sinful and destructive, were to lecture him on the policy of disbanding our army and militia, destroying all fire-arms, ordnance, fortifications, and military stores, and presenting our naked breasts to any invaderat the same time that Britain was menacing hostility, and overshadowing our frontier with her troops-what would be his idea of the project? Would he not be tempted to say, "Sir, your logic may be very good in an abstract, general sense; but you must first convert our neighbors to your doctrines, before you can bring us to act as though all the world were of your way of thinking." "Nonsense!" says the Non-Resistant; "why should another man's folly be master over our wit?" If other countries choose to pursue a course of policy hurtful to themselves, is there any reason why we should follow in their footsteps for the sake of reciprocating an injury?" This is the logic of many visionary theorists, who revel in a world of their own creation; is it consistent with plain, practical common sense? My reviewer, in another place, remarks:

"The distress of the years 1825 and 1836 is, with the most obvious inconsistency, charged to the operation of free trade principles. Not the shadow of a reason is adduced in favor of this view, but, like the other notions, (we cannot designate them by the name of arguments,) it rests upon assumption. That the distress of those years can be clearly traced to the circumstance of our having, and acting upon, a false standard of value, we are, at the proper time, prepared to demonstrate, if need be."

Now, my "notion," which of course "does not deserve the name of argument," is this-that if we had had an efficient Protective Tariff, from the close of the last war down to the present time, we should have imported far less of the cloths, cutlery, and other manufactures of Great Britain, than we have done; that, not importing them, we should not have had them to pay for, nor been in debt for them; and, of course, that no pressure, convulsion, suspension, or other disasters growing out of a heavy indebtedness to foreign nations, and a demand for its liquidation, would have occurred. I believe that there is an abundance of facts extant, to show that I have here hinted at the one true source of our difficulties, and the appropriate remedy. As to the "false standard of value," I shall of course await the demonstration which my reviewer has threatened. But let us hear Sir Oracle once more:

"We have stated that protecting duties, instead of stimulating production, restrict it-or, in other words, that a country acting upon the principles of free trade, other circumstances being the same, will produce a greater amount of wealth than a country following a restrictive policy.".

Now, that he has "stated" this, is true; but that there is a single fact in the world's history, which tends to justify his assertion, I seriously doubt. Where is the country of twenty millions, "acting upon the principles of Free Trade," which produces so great an amount of wealth as Great Britain? Would she produce so much grain as now if there were no corn laws? as much cloths if the fabrics of all the world were admitted to her ports free of duty ?-so much wealth, in short, if all the world were allowed to compete with her on equal

.

terms for the supply of her own markets? I cannot begin to believe it. My reviewer denies point blank that the effect of Free Trade would be to reduce the wages of labor; says the contrary assumption "is almost too shallow to require exposure"-that "we have shown [asserted] that a greater amount of wealth would be produced, with a given expenditure of labor and capital, under the Free Trade system, than under the restrictive"-and at length triumphantly asks, "But what is the condition of the laboring classes in the European countries which have so long enjoyed the blessings of Protection?" I answer, that I am ready now to proceed to a comparison of the wages and condition of laborers in those countries, with those of the nations which eschew Protection the world over. If the wages of laborers are not higher in the former, then I have misread grossly. But I will consider this point more fully in connexion with another paragraph of my antagonist's, which is the only remaining one in which I find any thing especially requiring notice, and which, as covering very plausibly the disputed ground, I shall consider more at length. The paragraph is as follows:

"On what ground, then, is a protecting duty required for any article? On the ground that we can import it more cheaply than it is produced at home?which means that, with the same outlay of labor and capital which is required to produce the article at home, we can produce a greater amount of other commodities than is required in exchange for it: consequently, a course of liberal policy would enable us to obtain the article by a smaller expenditure of capital and labor, leaving the remainder to be employed in adding to our wealth in some other way.'

Now, I shall not accuse my reviewer of any unfairness in this statement, but I do contend that he has taken a very superficial and mistaken view of the subject. "We should buy where we can buy cheapest,"—the old adage, -is the substance of his argument. Very well; but should we buy where the fewest dollars will pay, or where the smallest amount of the property we have to offer will be taken in exchange? The latter undoubtedly. We may buy for ten millions in one part of the world, and for twelve millions in another, and yet the latter be the cheapest purchase, by reason of the different valuations of the property given in exchange. To illustrate this point fully, I will state a case, made up of facts of almost literal occurrence, and the principles of which, I with deference suggest, cover the whole ground of this important controversy. It is as follows:

The township of Londonderry, New Hampshire, is almost exclusively an agricultural one, and has been from its settlement. The large and busy manufacturing city of Lowell, Massachusetts, has grown up near it, within a few years, and is its present market. Now we will suppose Londonderry to purchase her cloths of Lowell-say 8,000 yards at an average of five dollars per yard-and to pay for them in her products as follows:

1,000 cords of wood per annum at $5

10,000 bushels of charcoal at 10 cts.

$5,000

1,000

10,000

15,000

9,000

$40,000

Cabbages, and other vegetables

Total,

Thus an active trade is carried on between the agricultural and manufacturing communities, to their mutual advantage; but at length new counsels prevail. The good people of Londonderry are keen for "buying where