PROTECTION 
 
 FREE TRADE, 
 
 COMPARED, 
 
 IN THEIR INFLUENCE 
 
 NATIONAL INDUSTRY, 
 
 WEALTH AND POWER. 
 
 WU\\a'rv\"2ujr-\ei^ 'M dWss, 
 
 SALEM: 
 
 PRWTED AT THE GAZETTE OFFICE. 
 
 1846. 
 

 Ijssx 
 
 £0 
 
The following pages were intended to give a concise view of 
 Protection and Free Trade, and to urge the policy of protecting 
 American industry against too great foreign competition. Some 
 considerations are presented here, as to the tendency of the Protec¬ 
 tive system to preserve the balance of power between independent 
 nations, and to prevent any one from acquiring a dangerous pre¬ 
 ponderance. This view of the question, though not so common in 
 discussions of this kind, is not without its importance, and should 
 not be lost sight of in estimating the comparative merits of the two 
 systems. 
 
 If other nations can be persuaded to adopt the Free Trade sys¬ 
 tem, the English expect, by their greater wealth and skill, to under¬ 
 sell, and consequently to overthrow the foreign manufacturer, and to 
 extend and secure their own manufacturing superiority. This may 
 be good policy for England, but it is contrary to the interest of oth¬ 
 er nations. Their interest is to prevent the undue ascendency of 
 any one state, and to preserve some degree of equality among na¬ 
 tions in the elements of wealth, security, and power. To accom¬ 
 plish this object, it is necessary to protect the industry of their own 
 people against the superior capital and skill of their English rivals. 
 
 Much the greater part of this essay was published a few months 
 since, in a series of numbers in the Salem Gazette. In a revision, 
 a few alterations and additions have been made, and at the close is 
 a view of the operation of the New Tariff, or Secretary Walker’s 
 Sliding Scale. 
 
PROTECTION vs. FREE TRADE. 
 
 The question as to the comparative merits of the two opposite 
 systems of Free Trade and Protection, seems to be brought home 
 to our community. Or, as the question may be stated. Whether it 
 is wise in a nation, in Us financial system and foreign trade, to give a 
 preference to the industry of its own citizens over that offoreigners 1 
 
 Upon.this subject, tbere is a singular opposition, between the 
 doctrines of books and the measures of governments, between the 
 words of philosopliers and the acts of statesmen. Though free trade 
 opinions have been advocated by a majority of writers on political 
 economy, they have been adopted only by a very small minority of 
 governments. 
 
 The Edinburgh Review, a journal well known for forty years as 
 the advocate of free trade, laments, in a recent number, that no 
 foreign states except Tiu’kcy and Holland, have yet admitted these 
 principles. In these two nations, Turkey and Holland, are includ¬ 
 ed neither of flie five great powers of Europe, nor would either of 
 these two be now classed among prosperous nations. 
 
 England has lately adopted the free trade system to a much great¬ 
 er extent than formerly, though she is still far from carrying out the 
 principle universally. 
 
 The statesmen have been contented to act without writing books. 
 Instead of undertaking to refute the free trade opinions of the 
 philosophers, they have generally been satisfied to adopt opposite 
 measures themselves. Perhaps they had no objection that foreign¬ 
 ers should be influenced by fallacies which did not affect them; as 
 the powerful nations of Europe used to tolerate the Barbary cor¬ 
 sairs, as long as they confined their depredations to their weaker 
 commercial rivals. 
 
 The statesmen deal with men and things, the writers with abstract 
 ideas. The parties stand in the same relation to each other as 
 architects and mathematicians. 
 
 What nation in the world most desires the removal of all restric¬ 
 tions upon commerce! Is it the richest, or the poorest? The most 
 powerful, or the weakest? It is the nation which is unquestionably 
 the most wealthy and powerful upon the globe,—England. What 
 
6 
 
 state of things do the English expect to be brought about by free 
 
 With their greater capital, skill, and experience, they expect to 
 undersell and overthrow the manufactures of all other nations. 
 
 But do they expect their own agriculture to suffer under the same 
 system, from the competition of foreign farmers: By no means- 
 Hear the language of one of their own writers, as to the effects of a 
 repeal of the Corn laws. “ The landlords and farmers may take 
 courage. Their prosperity does not rest upon the basis of an odious 
 restriction, but it is the effect of the fertility of the soil which be¬ 
 longs to them, and of the number and wealth of the consumers of 
 their produce.” 
 
 Thus free trade is advocated in England, upon the ground that it 
 will cause their manufactures to prosper at the expense of rival na¬ 
 tions, without essentially injuring their own agriculture. Their 
 manufacturers and operatives, it is urged, will grow richer, while 
 their land-owners and farmers will become no poorer. Their manu¬ 
 facturers are to thrive to the injury of those of France, Germany, 
 and the United States. But there is to be no reciprocity; foreign 
 agricultu^fs are by no means to become prosperous at the expense 
 of the Enilish farmer. 
 
 So that the English advocates of free trade do not expect other 
 nations to derive any real recompense for the destruction of their 
 manufactures, by the admission of their agricultural produce into 
 the market of Great Britain. And why? There is a great differ¬ 
 ence between the expense of transporting manufactured goods, 
 which include a great value in a small bulk, and the products of 
 agriculture, which include a small value in a great bulk. The 
 farmer of Illinois, or the interior of Poland, can never grow rich by 
 selling his wheat in Manchester, in England, for the expense of 
 freight will absorb more than half the price. The protection which 
 proximity gives to the English farmer, can never be destroyed by 
 any alteration of tariffs. But the manufacturer of Manchester can, 
 for a mere trifle, convey his calicoes to Illinois or Poland. The 
 American or Polish manufacturer is as much exposed to be ruined by 
 this competition, as to be killed by a rifle bullet fired at him from a 
 distance of a hundred yards. The English farmer, on the other 
 hand, is no more in danger of being crushed by the bulky barrels of 
 floor finm the valley of the Mississippi, than by a paving stone aim¬ 
 ed at him a hundred yards off. 
 
 It is natural, therefore, that the English should almost unani¬ 
 mously he opposed to the protective system. They see its effect on 
 
7 
 
 all sides is, to’ limit their wealth and narrow their power. The 
 Whig and Radical opposition in Parliament is continually denounc¬ 
 ing it. And the Tory Administration, even while supporting some 
 exception by which the interests of Great Britain are to be promot¬ 
 ed, always cordially assents to the general rule. 
 
 But it is only since the commerce, manufactures, and wealth of 
 Great Britain have far surpassed those of any other country, that 
 free trade opinions have prevailed there. A hundred years ago, 
 when the Dutch rivalled her in commerce, and the French in manu¬ 
 factures, such doctrines were never so much as whispered. Then 
 the measures of the British government, and the language of British 
 writers, alike favored the protective system. 
 
 And when Holland was first in the world in trade and wealth, it 
 was there alone that free trade found its supporters. 
 
 In France, the less wealthy and less powerful rival of England, 
 we find equal unanimity in favor of the protective system, and 
 against free trade. There is here no disagreement, no debate, on 
 this subject,— v/e never see it mentioned as one of the questions dis¬ 
 cussed in the Chamber of Deputies. And protection in France 
 means more than it does in the United States. It does not stop 
 short at a tariff for revenue, with discrimination for the sake of pro¬ 
 tection, but excludes altogether such kinds of goods as come into 
 competition with domestic industry. The list of the articles which 
 it prohibits, is too long to be given here. But it includes all cotton, 
 woollen, and worsted goods, boots and shoes, saddlery, glass ware, 
 carriages, manufactures of copper and brass, and most kinds of hard 
 ware, and in its minuteness descends to prohibiting the importation 
 of sugar candy. 
 
 The French are not ashamed of the proteetive system; .hey mean 
 to exclude such foreign manufactures as come into competition with 
 their own, and care not if all the world knows it. England, on the 
 other hand, who has a vital interest in the adoption of the principles 
 of free trade, by other nations, wherever she finds it expedient to 
 protect her own industry, does it as quietly and unostentatiously as 
 possible. She takes good care never to risk her reputation for libe- 
 
8 
 
 ground that the new duties would answer the same purpose, and 
 protect the English manufacturerjust as well as the old. The 
 scheme reminds ns of a way in which monkeys are caught in the 
 East Indies. The hunter goes [into the woods [provided with two 
 basins; the one he fills with clay and water, mixed into a paste, and 
 places where the monkeys can have convenient access to it. The 
 
 jealous and hostile feeling towards her pervaded the whole Conti¬ 
 nent, and in spite of the natural antipathy which monarchies must 
 have to rebellious subjects, and to republicans, the feeling, not only 
 of the people, but the governments of all the rest of Europe, was 
 favorable to us. Not only did France, Spain, and Holland, actual- 
 
9 
 
 ly join us in the war, but it was plain that the good wishes of the 
 other states were with us, and not with Great Britain. 
 
 The balance of power was ne.\t threatened by the mililary force 
 of France, excited by the revolution, and directed by the genius of 
 Bonaparte. The contest was conducted by England and France 
 upon the most opposite principles. France did every thing by force. 
 Men were compelled by the conscription, to serve in her armies, 
 and their pay and subsistence were extorted from the conquered 
 countries. This was a very easy method of supporting armies, in 
 the beginning, but in the end it waked that storm of hatred by which 
 the power of Bonaparte was swept away. The British armies, on 
 the other hand, were paid and subsisted at the expense of their own 
 government, and so tvere never a burden to the country which was 
 tire seat of war. It was the sun and the wind, contending for the 
 traveller’s cloak, and the sun, of course, prevailed. Then Eng¬ 
 land attained again that pre-eminence in the world from which her 
 ill success in the war of our revolution had displaced her. 
 
 Thus it was the gold of Britain that overthrew the armies of 
 France. And yet the island contained no mines of gold or silver. 
 Her wealth was derived from the sale of her broadcloths and cali¬ 
 coes. So that it was English broadcloths and calicoes that conquer¬ 
 ed Bonaparte. But armies and navies cannot be paid with calicoes. 
 The goods must first be converted into money, and their value de¬ 
 pends upon their finding customers. That is, their value depends 
 very much upon the prevalence of free trade in the world. And 
 therefore, as we are endeavoring to show, the power of Great Britain 
 depends, in a great degree, upon free trade. 
 
 Now it was very well that Bonaparte should be put down, but the 
 wealth that conquered him would have been equally efficacious in 
 the most unjust war. No nation has been more ready to maintain 
 the balance of power, even at the expense of war, than Great 
 Britain. So that she certainly has no reason to complain, if inci¬ 
 dentally, in the protection of their own industry, other nations should 
 aim at limiting her power by restricting the consumption of her 
 manufactures. The protective tarifis of the United States, and of 
 every considerable nation of Europe, have already, to a consider¬ 
 able extent, bad this eflect. Listen to the language of an English 
 writer on this subject. “ The entrance duties af France, the com¬ 
 mercial union of Germany, the hostile system of Russia, these and 
 other circumstances, have already diminished, and threaten finally 
 to annihilate the commercial superiority of Great Britain.” Now 
 to annihilate the commercial superiority of Great Britain, is exactly 
 
10 
 
 what other nations wish and intend. Their Interest is coramereial 
 equality. 
 
 It is not natural or politic, for tvriters to dwell much upon the 
 weak or vulnerable points of their own country; but when we find 
 those of England alluding to such topics, it is not so much the ar¬ 
 mies of Russia, or the navies of France and the United States, that 
 excite their apprehensions, as the protective tarifis and manufactur¬ 
 ing success of other nations. Hear the arguments, by which a re¬ 
 cent English writer opposes a philanthropic scheme for granting to 
 the Christian inhabitants of the Turkish empire equal rights with 
 the Mahometans. They are in substance as follows : “ The Turks 
 are a sluggish and unenterprising people, who have no manufac¬ 
 tures or commerce, and can therefore never be dangerous rivals to 
 us. They adhere to the principles of free trade, and offer a valu¬ 
 able market for our manufactures. But the present government is 
 founded upon the subjection of the conquered races to that of the 
 Turks, and to grant equal rights to all would endanger its stability. 
 And such are the natural advantages of Turkey, that under any 
 other government than the present, it would become a great com¬ 
 mercial and manufacturing country, and a protective tariff would 
 be established there. Thus the interests of England would suffer 
 by any change in the present system.” 
 
 Here are his own words : 
 
 “ Whoever possesses the Bosphorus, Propontis, and Archipelago, 
 must become a maritime nation. WTioever possesses Constanti¬ 
 nople, must become a great manufacturing and exporting nation, in 
 defiance of competition. In less than half a century, the romantic 
 villas and tapering cypresses that now fringe the blue Bosphorus, 
 would be replaced by factories and steam-chimnies, every one of 
 which would be a deadly rival to a similar establishment in Great 
 Britain. I argue as an Englishman whose duty it is to consider the 
 material interests of his own country, and not to occupy himself 
 with the theories of political philanthropists. * 
 
 With the increasing embarrassments to commerce and industry, 
 which continental states are raising against Britain, it is essential 
 that we should not allow a false cry of philanthropy to throw us off 
 our guard in the Levant.” Thus far the English writer. 
 
 So that the whole Christian population of Turkey are to remain 
 in a state approaching to slavery for fear that their emancipation 
 should lead to the establishment of a protective tariff there, and to 
 making Constantinople a great manufacturing and commercial city. 
 
 And upon this subject we have not merely the words of an indi- 
 
.11 
 
 vidual Englishman, but the acts of bis government to the same point. 
 Only five years ago, the British government engaged in a war mere¬ 
 ly to sustain and strengthen the present free trade government of 
 Turkey. Mahomet All then had possession of Syria, where he had 
 established equal rights for all, and placed the Christians and Jews 
 upon the saihe footing as the Mahometans. But the British navy, 
 as we all remember, attacked and destroyed the seaports of Syria, 
 and restored the Turkish government. Then the Christian popula¬ 
 tion was immediately reduced to its old state of degradation, and 
 punished by a general pillage and massacre, for the short lived 
 equality it had enjoyed. 
 
 The Protective System tends to prevent the wealth, and therefore 
 the power of the world, from being concentrated in one nation, in 
 the same manner that natural obstacles, mountains, seas, deserts, 
 and morasses, have ever checked the progress of conquerors. The 
 power of Bonaparte, which had ever been victorious in the fields of 
 Italy and of Germany, was shattered upon the vast frozen plains of 
 Russia, and the rugged mountains of Spain. The French now ex¬ 
 perience, in the crags of Mount Atlas and the scorching sands of 
 the desert, the same difficulties in conquering Algiers, that the Ro¬ 
 mans encountered there two thousand years ago. And against 
 these natural fortifications, all the arts of modern warfare seem even 
 less efficient than the shield and spear of the ancients. 
 
 The obvious tendency of the protective system being, then, to 
 preserve the balance of power in the world by putting some limits to 
 the wealth and strength of Great Britain, this circumstance alone 
 ought to gain for it the favor of those politicians, with whom patriot¬ 
 ism means eagerness for an offensive war with that natiop. 
 
 Competition in trade has some resemblance to war, and the Fou- 
 rierites only carry out farther the principles of the Quakers, when 
 they e.xclude it from their system. But it is the operations of defen¬ 
 sive, and not of offensive war, that protective tariffs resemble. 
 They only preserve the home market to the native producer, and 
 leave the foreigner to enjoy that of his own country undisturbed. 
 They are the forts which defend our own harbors, and not the ships 
 which attack those of our neighbors. 
 
 Free trade is not necessarily fair competition. As the race is not 
 
12 
 
 a fair one, where one jockey is heavier than the other, unless the 
 lighter man carry weight; so a pitched battle in the open field is 
 not necessarily an equal contest. One army may be more experi- 
 
 competitor sells for nine, it would be no security for him that his 
 article was good and the price intrinsically moderate. The result 
 will be, not that he will make nine-tenths as much profit as the 
 Englishman, but that his business will be broken up, his workmen 
 thrown out of employ, and he ruined. But this result will be as dis¬ 
 astrous to France, as if her army had been defeated in battle by 
 that of England. The French consumer will gain but one cent a 
 yard, and that .will not last long after the British - manufacturer has 
 
13 
 
 of invention arid improvement. This may be shown by a variety of 
 examples. The progress made in the cotton manufacture, within a 
 .hundred years past, is perhaps the most striking. The manufacture 
 of cotton in India can be traced back as far as historical records ex¬ 
 tend. The oldest historian, who wrote 400 years before the Chris¬ 
 tian era, speaks of its existing in his time. In a work written in 
 the second century, about 1700 years ago, it appears that the same 
 .descriptions of cotton goods were then exported from the same ports 
 in India as in modern times. After the discovery of the passage 
 round the Cape of Good Hope, India cotton began to be imported 
 into Europe in considerable quantities. Though the material was 
 carded, spun, and woven, entirely by hand, without any help from 
 machinery, the Hindoos were so dexterous and their wages so low, 
 that no goods of any material, of a similar quality and fit for tlie 
 same uses, could be made so cheap in Europe. Such large quanti¬ 
 ties of India cottons were imported into England towards the close 
 of the nth century, that the use of them interfered very seriously 
 with the sale of their own goods. In order to protect their own 
 manufactures, not only of cotton, but of woollen, silk, and linen, 
 from this competition, Parliament, in the year 1700, passed an act 
 prohibiting entirely the use of India cottons. It is somewhat inter¬ 
 esting to see the manner in which Defoe, the author of Robinson 
 Crusoe, and one of the ablest political writers of the age, who sup¬ 
 ported this prohibition, treats the matter. Speaking of India cotton, 
 
 “It crept into our houses, closets, and bedchambers; curtains, 
 cushions, chairs, and at last beds themselves, were nothing but cali¬ 
 coes or India stuffs, and in short almost every thing which used to 
 be made of wool or silk, relating either to the dross of the women, 
 or the furniture of our houses, was supplied by the India trade. 
 What remained then for our people to do, but to stand still and look 
 on, and to see the bread taken out of their mouths, and the East In¬ 
 dia trade carry away the whole employment of the people ? What 
 had the masters to do but to dismiss their journeymen, and take no 
 more apprentices? What had the journeymen to do but to sit still, 
 grow poor, run away, and starve? 
 
 The several goods brought from India, are made five parts in 
 six under our price, and being imported and sold at an extravagant 
 profit, were yet capable of underselling the cheapest thing we could 
 set about. Let no man wonder that Parliament, as soon as they 
 were made sensible of this, came readily into the prohibition.” 
 
 Such was the superior cheapness of India calicoes over any simi- 
 
14 
 
17 
 
18 
 
 It has been objected to protection, In the United States, that It 
 compels the fanner to pay a higher price for the goods he buys, 
 without enabling him to get a higher price for the produce he sells. 
 Now the friends of protection do not concede that in the end it rais¬ 
 es the price of goods, for it encourages the home manufacturers to 
 extend their husiness, until in the end domestic competition reduces 
 the price to the lowest point. But even admitting that the price of 
 manufactured goods is somewhat raised, let us enquire whether the 
 value of agricultural produce is not also enhanced. If the price of 
 an article in the market is low, and we wish to increase it, we must 
 either diminish the supply or increase the demand,—diminish the 
 number of sellers or increase that of the buyers. And, if by turn¬ 
 ing sellers into buyers, we are enabled to work at both-ends at once, 
 our object will be accomplished twice as fast. Let it be agricultu¬ 
 ral produce, of which we wish to raise the price; to do it we must 
 
19 
 
 countries. Russia, Poland, and Germany, all export large quanti¬ 
 ties of wheat, which is shipped chiefly from the ports of Odessa, in 
 the south of Europe, and Dantzic and Hamburg, in the north. It 
 is the wheat of Dantzic and Hamburg that ours would be most 
 likely to come into competition with; and it may be trorth while to 
 inquire what the prices in these ports are. Their wheat in the 
 market of England, say, will have a considerable advantage over 
 ours, in the cost of freight, which will be about half what it is from 
 the ports of the United States. But it may be thought that the 
 prices of Dantzic and Hamburg are so high, that they will remune¬ 
 rate well the American grower, deducting the difierence in freight 
 It therefore becomes interesting to us to inquire what the prices at 
 these European ports are. 
 
 The average price of wheat at Dantzic, for the twenty-two years 
 ending with 1843, was ninety-three cents a bushel,—at Hamburg, 
 eighty-four cents; while the average price in the seaports of the 
 United States, for the same period, was one dollar and seventeen 
 cents. But if we are td be regular exporters of wheat to Europe, 
 we must not only accept their prices, but considerably lower ones, 
 on account of the dilTerence in freight, which is twice as high from 
 the United States to England, as from the Baltic. Or if wheat from 
 the United States, during these years, had been admitted into the 
 market of Great Britain duty free, and that coming from the Baltic 
 had been charged with a duty of thirty-three per cent, the Baltic 
 wheat grower would still, upon an average of seasons, have enjoyed 
 a considerable advantage over us. 
 
 Thus if wheat is to become an object of regular export to Eng¬ 
 land, we cannot see what is to prevent our prices from ranging ten 
 cents a bushel lower than those of the north of Europe, for their 
 wheat must always be worth about that sum more than ours, to ship 
 for the English markets. And when wheat in the Baltic falls to 
 seventy cents, a price as frequent there as ninety cents is here, it 
 must be sixty cents in New York. But may the farmers of the 
 United States never be reduced to this condition;—may the country 
 never be so impoverished as to accept such prices. 
 
 It we compare our prices with those of Odessa, the principal port 
 in the south of Europe from which grain is exported, the difference 
 will be found to be still more in our favor, as wheat there, for the 
 fourteen years ending with 1843, averaged only sixty-four cents a 
 bushel. 
 
 Considering then that under a protective tariff the wheat growers 
 of the United States have realized so much better prices than those 
 of the other grain exporting countries in the world, we should think 
 that they at least would be averse to any change. They should be- 
 
20 
 
 ware of killing the goose that has -laid them so many golden eggs. 
 
 But since bread stufis are annually exported to a large amount 
 from the United States, how, it will be asked, can our prices be 
 higher than those of the European ports, from which the same com¬ 
 modities are shipped? In the first place, our steady home demand, 
 which is incomparably greater than that of Poland, prevents our 
 prices from ever sinking so low, or fluctuating so much, as theirs. 
 Secondly, the United States are much'more conveniently situated 
 than any European country, for supplying the West Indies and 
 South America with flour, and it will, on an average, command a 
 considerably higher price there than in Europe. 
 
 The cultivation of wheat for a distant foreign market, must, from 
 the nature of the case, ever be an uncertain and ill remunerated 
 business. It is an article which the poor consume as well as the 
 rich, and therefore it cannot permanently bear a high price. It is 
 produced in almost every country upon the globe, and therefore the 
 competition in the sale of it must he very great. Thus while the 
 firmer, who has the advantage of proximity, gets hut a moderate 
 remuneration for his labor, the profits of the distant farmer are 
 swallowed up in the expense of transportation. 
 
 In France, domestic agriculture is [protected by duties upon the 
 importation of [bread stufis, aad they are dearer there than in any 
 other of the great countries of Europe, except England. As to the 
 necessity of ^this protection, the following strong language is used, 
 in a report of a committee of the Chamber of Deputies, made in 
 1832: 
 
 “ If we admitted the food and raiment, and colonial and other 
 products, which strangers would bring to our ports we might proba¬ 
 bly gain some hundred millions ol francs; should we be the richer 
 in consequence?—for the riches of a state are in the elements of la¬ 
 bor, and when labor fails to find employment, misery is reproduced. 
 And it is not only a question of comfort, but one of existence; for if 
 wheat were introduced without duty from the Baltic or Black Sea, 
 our maritime shores would remain uncultivated, and the efiect of a 
 ruinous competition would afiect more and more nearly the whole of 
 our population.” 
 
 Yet the average price of wheat in France, for the twenty-three 
 yetis commencing with 1814, and ending with 1836,—one dollar 
 twenty-nine cents a bushel,—equivalent to six dollars a barrel for 
 flour, does not seem very high. The average price of flour in 
 Philadelphia for-the same period, was six dollars fifty cents. So if 
 there were no freight or other expenses to pay, the exportation of 
 flour bom the United States into France, would upon the average 
 of these years have been attended with positive loss. And as our 
 
21 
 
 prices were higher than those of France, how could we have enter¬ 
 ed into competition with those countries whose low priced wheat 
 was only prevented by protective duties, from ruining French agri¬ 
 culture? Indeed, it would seem that the wheat growers of the Uni¬ 
 ted States would, had Poland been equally near them, have been in 
 the same danger, from her competition, with those of France. 
 
 In years like the present, when the grain crops of Europe arc 
 deficient, and those of the United States abundant, wo may no 
 doubt export flour to Europe with advantage. But this is a benefit 
 which fortune confers, and which does not depend upon free trade. 
 So in 1837, when our crop was deficient, we imported a large quan¬ 
 tity of wheat from Europe. 
 
 A celebrated English writer on commerce says, “ The prices of 
 wheat in America are usually higher than in the Baltic; so that lit¬ 
 tle can be brought from the former, except when the demand is 
 sufficient previously, to take off the cheaper wheat of the latter 
 
 It will be urged by some, that since the repeal of the Corn laws, 
 things are changed, and that for the future England will afford us a 
 good market for almost any quantity of bread stuffs. And the fail¬ 
 ure of the potato crop this season, happening at the same time with 
 a deficiency in the crops of grain throughout Europe generally, has 
 given a great advantage to those who. maintain this theory. But 
 what was the effect of the repeal of the Corn Laws upon the price 
 of bread stuffs in this country, before it was known that the harvest 
 in Europe would be deficient. Soon after, flour fell to a price, 
 (four dollars a barrel,) which, though not unusual in Europe, had 
 not been known in the United States since the adoption of the tariff 
 of 1825, and only once during the present century. The present 
 demand for flour for the European market is merely the natural re¬ 
 sult of an accidental famine there, and might have existed, indeed, 
 has existed, under the old English corn laws. In the year 1817 in¬ 
 deed, when there was as now a simultaneous deficiency of the har¬ 
 vest in France and England, there was an export demand for all the 
 flour our farmers had to spare, at prices much higher than arc now 
 current. In addition to the bad season, the troubles in Poland must 
 have interrupted cultivation there, and so diminished considerably 
 the disposable surplus for exportation. 
 
 If the news of the repeal of the corn laws and of a bad harvest, 
 had come to us simultaneously, their effect upon the market might 
 have been confounded, but now it is very easy to make the proper 
 discrimination. 
 
 But will not the opening of the English ports raise the price of 
 wheat so much in the Baltic that ours can come into competition 
 
By the new tariff all specific duties are abelished, and ad valorem