LETTERS
PROM
S. D. BRADFORD, ESQ.,
To TlE,
HON. WVILLIAM M. MEREDITH,
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.








LETTERS
TO
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM M. MEREDITH,
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
ON HIS
RECENT TREASURY REPORIT
THE INJURIOUS EFFECTS OF
PROTECTIVE AND PROHIBITORY DUTIES,
AND THE
ADVANTAGES OF FREE TRADE.
PUBLISHED IN THE BOSTON POST FEB. 4TH, 5TH, 6TH, 7TH AND 8TH, 1850.
BY S. D. BRADFORD, ESQ.
4 Such men are fitter for practice than for counsel, and they are good but in their own alley: turn
them to new men, and they have lost their aim.-Lord Bacon.
BOSTON:
PRINTED BY BEALS & GREENE,
1850.








TO THE EDITOR OF THE BOSTON POST.
West Roxbury, near Boston, 1st Feb., 1850.
DEAR SIR,
I send you to-day some letters addressed to Mr. Meredith,
secretary of the treasury, of which I ask the insertion in your
paper. They were written, with the exception of a few trifling
additions, in November last, several weeks before Mr. Meredith's
report was published. So accurately had public rumor foreshadowed the policy, which such a document, emanating from such a
quarter, was likely to recommend, that I have had occasion to
alter only one paragraph, in which I had taken it for granted that
the secretary would propose an increase of the duty upon iron
and coal, distinctly and by themselves. Forgetting for a moment
the profession to which he recently belonged, and that a lawyer
is like a pilot, who often takes an oblique course to reach a point
of land, which he could never fetch by sailing upon a straight
and direct line, I had supposed that Mr. Meredith would place
the two favorite articles of his native state in the foremost rank,
as every one knows they must have occupied the first place
in his thoughts. I could not have anticipated at the time, that
not only the report itself, but the subsequent proceedings of the
secretary in conducting the business of his office, would have
called forth such a host of critics and commentators in the papers
of New York and of nearly every other city in the Union, writing over every variety of signature, except their own. It did not
seem to me that the moment had arrived for publishing the letters, because congress, ever since the session commenced, having
been occupied with only two things-the choice of a speaker and




the slavery question-no one appeared ready for a discussion
upon the tariff.
The consequence probably is that some of my remarks and
statements may have been anticipated by the writers I have just
named, and a further delay may increase the difficulty. On this:account, and that the public may not be more wearied than is
necessary in reading discussions upon a subject so threadbare,
and upon which so little of novelty can be expected, (though so
important that it should be well understood,) I send you the letters for publication in your valuable journal, without further
delay.
I have made no comment on that part of Mr. Meredith's report, which recommends an increase of duty on cottons and
woollens. I have not seen an account of any convention of the
cotton or woollen manufacturers to request of the government
more protection; and most of them are either so prosperous already, or have such a brilliant future before them, that I cannot
persuade myself they intend making any appeal to the sympathy
or the justice of congress this year, at any rate. Should they do
so, it will be time to examine their claims after they shall have
been presented. But if our manufacturers are prosperous, it
would be the grossest flattery to assert that they have improved
as they should have done, and as the manufacturers of other
countries have done. The duties now paid are too high to expect much improvement, and the manufacturers " slumber too
soundly under the tree of protection" to attempt making the
finer fabrics of cotton. They continue to manufacture principally coarse grey sheetings or printing cloths. They have gone
largely into the former since the passage of the tariff of 1846;;and should it be necessary hereafter to publish an account of all
the investments, they have made in land, water privileges, mills
and machinery since that date, it would, if I mistake not, unfold
a tale, of which your distant readers have a very imperfect conception.   I remain, dear sir, very truly your friend and
Obedient servant,
S, D. BRADFORDI




MR. BRADFODll'S LETTERS  TO  liMR. MEltEDITH.
West Roxbury, near Boston, 1st Feb., 1850.
SIR-I have not the pleasure of your personal acquaintance,
and yet I shall offer no apology for addressing to you the observations, I may deem it my duty to make upon the late treasury
report, which, in obedience to custom and the law you have
recently prepared and laid before congress.  The occasion is
one of the greatest national importance, and concerns the interest
and welfare of every individual in the country. The subjects
discussed, and the recommendations offered, affect deeply our
national growth, our wealth, and our prosperity. The person,
therefore, who fills the office, which you hold, should not belong
to any particular clique, political, mineral, or metalic, but should
possess those high and eminent qualifications, which distinguish
the patriot and statesman. The successor of Hamilton, Gallatin,
Woodbury, and Walker should be one animated by the same elevated spirit, and having always near his heart, not the particular
exclusive interest of the state, to which he happens to belong,
but the general welfare and prosperity of the whole nation.
On a review of your report it is painful to remark the want
of all these essential qualifications.  We look for wise and
well considered counsels from  the secretary of the treasury
of the United States, but we find only the unwise and inconsiderate recommendations of the agent or attorney of the iron
masters and owners of coal mines in Pennsylvania. It is true
you have no where in your report devoLed a distinct paragraph
to recomunending all increase of dutty upon iron or coal by




6
themselves. The practice of your profession had, no doubt,
taught you that, being a native of Pennsylvania, you would be
more likely to obtain your object by placing those articles in
juxta position with sugar and other commodities.
"Cosi all'egro fanciul porgianio aspersi
Di soavi licor gli orli del vaso;"
The most casual reader, however, cannot fail to have remarked
that iron and coal are always uppermost in your thoughts, and
that on these articles especially, you would have the duty increased. Indeed we all know that ever since March last the protectionist journals through the whole land have spoken of the
assembling of congress, as if its principal business would be to
give additional protection to iron and coal.
The position, in which you have placed yourself, is the more
painful to contemplate, because having, before your acceptance
of office, belonged to a liberal profession, in which you had acquired an ample independence, and never having had occasion to
serve that apprenticeship of servility, deceit, and tergiversation,
which constitute the preliminary education of so many American
politicians, the public had expected better things of you-your
friends, and those too, who differed with you in politics, were
willing to forget those memorable words of Junius, who, in addressing another distinguished member of your profession, remarked, "that the indiscriminate defence of right and wrong
contracts the understanding, while it corrupts the heart; that
subtlety is soon mistaken for wisdom, and impunity for virtue;
and that if there be any instances upon record (as some there
are, undoubtedly,) of genius and morality united in a lawyer,
they are distinguished by their singularity, and operate as exceptions."  If I were personally unfriendly to you, if I had any private antipathies to gratify, I would dwell upon the elevated
standing you recently occupied at the bar. I would speak of the
reputation for candor and indepeneillce conceded to you by
the other members of the profession, and by the public at large.
J would repeat the vaticinations of some of your fri'.e!ds that hlav



ing accepted office without solicitation or pledges of any kind,
you would act up to the principles laid down by the President
himself, (and which he has so flagrantly violated) when he said
to the whigs, " you must take me on your own responsibility. I
will not be the candidate of a party, nor will I be the exponent
of your party principles." But although actuated by no unfriendly feelings, I would not fail to do what I can to expose the injurious effects of the policy you have recommended, before it shall
be adopted by congress, and receive the sanction of the laws.
"The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is often interred with their bones."
As you had accepted the office of a cabinet minister from a
president, who had publicly declared he had never sufficiently
considered the leading questions which divide the public mind,
to give an opinion upon them; and who had never any experience
in public affairs except as a military commander, the eyes of the
whole country were turned upon you as the Mentor, whose duty
as well as whose pleasure it would be to enlighten the ignorance,
to guide the inexperience, and to direct the public measures of
your neophyte. It was taken for granted that you had been an
observer of the events, which have been passing of late years in
Europe, especially in England; where a nation, once amongst
the most restrictive in its commercial laws and regulations, had
upon conviction of their impolicy cast aside the rags of protection, abandoning them to the Russians and other uncivilized
hordes, and inviting all other nations to join them in an unboundcd freedom of trade and commerce. It was deemed impossible
that the wise and far sighted measures of Mr. Walker, which
have filled his country with such unexampled prosperity, and
secured for their distinguished author a world-wide reputation,
could have escaped your observation; and it was hoped that you
would have had the good sense and humility to have imitated the
example of one of the most illustrious of our patriots and statesmen (Mr. Van Buren), and have publicly declared that you considered it " glory enough to follow in the footsteps of your illus



trious predecessor."  Such were the anticipations of many, both
whigs and democrats, at the time it was announced that General
Taylor had offered you a seat in the cabinet. How these expectations have been disappointed is the subject of daily remark, and
is known to all. In mentioning, as I have, your immediate predecessor (Mr. Walker), and the happy effects of his measures
upon the welfare and prosperity of the country, I do not speak
as a personal friend or partisan, but express only the sentiments
and convictions of the candid and intelligent of both political
parties. The just and judicious tariff, which he prepared and
recommended to the adoption of congress; the life, energy, and
order which lie infused into his department of the government;
the valuable statistics which he caused to be collected to guide
the legislature in their action upon the difficult questions of
finance and revenue; the introduction of the warehouse system,
and, above all, the distinguished and unrivalled ability, by which
he sustained the credit of the country and supplied the means
for conducting a foreign and expensive war, (negociating most
of the public loans at a premium), have extorted the admiration
of those, who differed most with the secretary in a political point
of view, and can never be forgotten by the nation. The merchants of New York, of both political parties, testified their approbation by tendering him a public dinner; and whatever part
of the country he visited, he was received as a public benefactor.
Such are a few of the measures of that minister and statesman, whose revenue system you would subvert and destroy by
recommending a new and different tariff; by dismissing from the
public service without the least cause of complaint most of the
collectors, public appraisers, and other officials, in whom he reposed the greatest confidence; and by every other method in
your power; and all this too by the most reckless violation of the
pledges voluntarily given by the President, your superior, who in
his inaugural address declared " So far as it is possible to be informed, I shall make honesty, capacity, and fidelity indispensible
prerequisites to the bestowal of office; and the absence of either
of those qualities shall be deemed sufficient cause for removal."




Of course then, the thousands, who have been re'moved under the
most proscriptive administration, which has existed since the
commencement of the government, have all fallen under one of
these catagories, and are deemed unworthy to serve their country longer.
"Crodat Judcus appella,
Non ego.
But you assign what solme persons may consider satisfactory reasons for these changes, and you assert that the imposts on some
articles, especially iron, coal, woollens, cottons, &c., are too low
and variable; that specific are to be preferred to ad valorem
duties; and that in adjusting the same, protection should be
afforded to such domestic manufactures as require it. You have
not ventured to designate the amount of protection, and unlike
some protectionists, who would destroy our foreign trade and
commerce altogether, you intimate that "if required you will
hereafter present a plan in detail." Fearing probably, that you
might alarm your patient by practising upon the Allopathic system, you have adopted the Homceopathic, and recommend only
"I unknown and indefinite portions" of protection for the body
politic. By this you betray the weakness of your cause, and
give occasion to your opponents to doubt if you have confidence
in your own specifics; for surely, if a little protection be such a
good thing, a great deal could not fail to be much better; and a
total prohibition of importations, as was recommended some years
since by a distinguished manufacturer and protectionist in Boston,
Mr. Brown, would be best of all.
Mr. Baldwin in 1824 and Mr. Clay in 1828 had no scruples
of this kind, and some of the duties then recommended were
prohibitory, as they intended they should be. The duty on bar
and rolled iron, for instance, by the tariff of 1828, was $22 and
$37 per ton. The legislation upon this article (iron) has been
of a character truly unique. The duty upon it has been changed
by nearly every tariff adopted by congress, and the same individuals have sometimes voted for raising it, and at other times for
lowering it, actuated by mnotives, which all may easily imagine,
2




10
out which need not now be characterized.  When, for instance,
in 1824, it was proposed in congress to raise the duty on this
article from $15 to 22,j a ton, Mr. Webster inveighed against it
with all the power of his arguments and eloquence. "The present duty, he said, on the imported article is $ 15 a ton, and as
this duty causes of course an equivalent augmentation of the
price of the home manufacture, the whole increase of price is
equal to $750,000 annually. This sum we pay on a raw material, and on an absolute necessary of life. The bill proposes to
raise the duty from $15 to 221 a ton, which would be equal to
$1,125,000 on the whole annual consumption; so that suppose
the point of prohibition, which is aimed at by some gentlemen, to
be attained, the consumers of the article would pay this last mentioned sum every year to the producers of it over and above the
price, at which they could supply themselves with the same article from other sources. There would be no mitigation to this
burthen except from the prospect (whatever that might be) that
iron would fall in value by domestic competition, after the importation should be prohibited. It will be easy, I think, to shew
that it cannot fall, and supposing for the present that it shall
not, the result will be that we shall pay annually a sum of $1,125,000, constantly augmented too by increased consumption of
the article, to support a business, which will not support itself.
It is of no consequence to the argument that this sum is expended at home; so it would be if we taxed the people to support any other useless and expensive establishment; to build
another capitol, for example, or to incur an unnecessary expense
of any sort."  " These are sound principles, says a distinguished
writer upon political economy, Henry Lee, Esq. They may be
denied, renounced, and even assailed by those, who once maintained them, but they cannot be subverted. Talents and ingenuity can do much. They can when misapplied, as they too
often are, mislead the selfish and the ignorant; but they cannot unsettle or overturn those original and self-evident principles, which
lie at the foundation of truth and justice."  These memorable
words of Mr. Webster we're addressed twenty-six years ago to




the assembled wisdom of the nation, and they will favorably coimpare with any thing, which can be found in the profound works
of Adam Smith, Ricardo, McCulloch, or any other writer on political economy. They were no doubt at the time the sincere
convictions of Mr. Webs-ter's mind fixed there by extensive reading, reflection, and observation. They are a complete refutation
of the sophisms daily advanced by manufacturers, essayists, politicians and others in our midst, and should, it seems to me, have
been well considered by you before you decided to recommend
an increase of the duty upon iron.
The further consideration of this subject will be continued in
my next communication.
I remain, very respectfully,
Your most obedient servant,
S. D. BRADFORD.
To the Hon. William M. Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, D. C.
West Roxbury, near Boston, 2d Feb., 1850.
SIR-Mr. Webster, when he made the speech, from which my
last communication contained an extract, had been for several
years a member of congress, had placed himself in the foremost
rank of statesmen, and his arguments urged at that time against
protective and prohibitory duties have lost none of their force by
lapse of years. I cannot help thinking they are his real opinions
now; and I am not without a hope that he may yet declare them
to be so. He has an illustrious example in Sir Robert Peel, who
having been a member of parliament for over thirty years, and
having always sustained protective and prohibitory duties on corn
and nearly all other articles of import, had the magnanimity at
the age of fifty-eight to make an -honest confession of his error,
and to become a leader in the cause of free trade. He made one
of his last great speeches in parliament, holding in his hand a
volume of Adam Smith, and recommending it as a text book for
the study and guidance of all statesmen. I am not willing to




12
believe that Mr. Webster is second in mag'nalmility to his illustrious cotemporary on the other side of the Atlantic. I do not
forget his votes in congress since 1824, nor his elaborate speech
in Faneuil Hall in October 1848 against the sub-treasury and the
tariff of 1846; nor his plea for the iron masters of Pennsylvania,
in which, however, he omitted to mention what rate of duty he
would consider sufficient on iron; but on that point we may
probably expect him to define his position during the present session of congress. Let every traveller over our six thousand miles
of railroads ponder these calculations of Mr. Webster made in
1824 and ask himself to whom he is indebted for the facility he
possesses of safe and rapid locomotion, and of the transportation of commodities at the moderate price, which he is called
upon to pay. Surely not the manufacturers of domestic railroad
iron; for they, before the passage of the tariff of 1846 and the
fall of the metal in England and Wales, had fixed their price at
seventy dollars a ton; whereas the article can now be had for
forty dollars. Take for instance the railroad now in process of
construction from New York to Albany by the Hudson river,
estimated to require 18,000 tons of rails. The difference between the domestic price some time since and the foreign value
now being $30 per ton, would amount to the sum of $540,000
on that enterprise.
That you should have proposed in your report to impose a duty
upon some of the articles which are now free, to provide a larger
revenue, might perhaps have been expected; but that you should
have recommended an addition to that on iron and coal may well
excite our special wonder. Who does not know that this commodity (iron) is absolutely essential for the machines of manufacturers, for all the implements of agriculture, and all the tools of
the mechanic arts? It is largely used also in the manufacture
of nails, in which we had arrived many years ago to such a degree
of excellence that they had become an article of export, and a
single firm in a neighboring county manufactured of them 45,000
casks a year, as long ago as 1832. That the manufacturers
of cottons, woollens, machinery.a &c., should favor an increase of




duty on iron or coal, call only be accounted for by supposing that
they have received pledges from the owners of those articles that
they will vote for representatives, who will use their influence to
increase the duty on the commodities, in which they are interested. It is recorded that "the annual consumption of coal at
Lowell only was several years ago (1843) 600,000 bushels;" and
in another statistical account of the same place compiled some
years since, it is stated 1"that the Locks and Canal Company
there employ 500 laborers and sometimes twice as many, and
manufacture annually 1225 tons of wrought iron."  How can
they expect to supply the home demand with cottons and woollens, and to be able to export the former with a profit, having to
pay for iron the price set upon it by the iron masters $70 a ton,
whilst the same article is used by their competitors the British at
$30 a ton?  Our ships, too, which have to meet such a sharp
rivalry, not only with those of Great Britain, but with the cheaper
and inferior vessels of Bremen, Hamburgh, Sweden, and Norway,
in what way can we so effectually enhance their cost as by adding to the price of iron? Mr. Webster in 1824 computed the
value of that metal used in the construction of a ship of the ordinary dimensions at from $4000 to $6000.
The annual production of iron in the United States is now estimated at 800,000 tons. The importation varies from year to
year according to circumstances. It may amount the present
year to 300,000 tons. The annual consumption of this country
is by some very intelligent iron masters estimated as high as
1,000,000 of tons; and by others at somewhat less. The correct amount must of course be conjectural only; but all agree
it is very great, is yearly increasing almost beyond computation
under the present moderate cost and duty, and is constantly entering more and more into the construction of dwelling houses,
warehouses, bridges, &c., where its high price once precluded its
being used. The import of iron into the port of New York from
the first of March to the first of September 1849 is stated by that
invaluable commercial paper the New York Journal of Commerce to
have been 112,010 tons, valued at a cost of $4,155,480 58-100O




14'The price having fallen to a low figure in England on account
of the deranged state of commercial affairs since 1847, and
the railroad panic, which has caused the suspension or abandonment of so many railways, the American manufacturers have
found it impossible to realize the price, which at one time they
had expected to obtain, and attribute their disappointment to the
tariff of 1846, which imposes a duty on iron of 30 per cent. The
actual duty paid since 1846 is estimated at about $9 a ton;whereas had it been $15, it is alleged by some persons that they
might have continued the business, and have received a fair compensation. It is presumed that this calculation must have been
made when the price of bar iron in England was ~9 a ton. The
price recently paid having been ~5 16s 1 Id, it could be imported
to cost only $48 under a duty of $15, so that the iron masters.
could scarcely expect consumers to pay the price required two
years ago, $70 a ton. It is a recorded fact that the Hudson
River Railroad Company of New York contracted with a company in New Jersey, in August 1847, for 6000 tons of rails at
$67 50-100, on which they afterwards paid a considerable sum
as an indemnity for having a part of the order cancelled after the
fall of the metal abroad.
If, under these circumstances, some of the iron masters of
Pennsylvania or other states have been obliged to limit their production, or where the capital employed had been borrowed, they
have been compelled, in some instances, to discontinue their
operations altogether, the occurrence need not excite any surprise, as the same thing is constantly happening in England and
Wa!es, into which countries the usual annual amount of iron, imported principally from Sweden, and paying a duty of 30s sterling
a ton, is only about 20,000 tons; so that the iron masters may
be said to have the almost entire supply of the: home market.
Digging for gold, silver, copper, or lead, has always been amongst
the most hazardous and uncertain of human pursuits. The most
frightful revulsions often occur amongst persons engaged in that
kind of business. At one time they make money very fast, and




15
then lose it again as rapidly as it had been made. It was stated
in England in 1839 that out of the several large companies engaged
in 1837 in working the Cornwall copper mines, (the produce of'
which was at that time about ~1,500,000 sterling per annum,)
nearly every one was in difficulty and a pecuniary crisis during
that year.
Such was the depression in iron of all kinds in 1843, and so
low was the price in consequence of the inability of the iron
masters to hold their stocks, that the Messrs. Rothschilds, of
London, were said to have purchased a large quantity of pig iron
in the Clyde at 30s stg. a ton. It was worth a short time previous ~4; and it sold in 1825 at from 12 to ~13 a ton! It is
absurd to assert that protecting the article would prevent these
fearful fluctuations. It would be far more likely to increase them.
The most severe crisis, our cotton and woollen manufacturers ever
passed through, was after the passage of the high and impolitic
tariff of 1828, the paternity of which has generally been ascribed
to Henry Clay. Some of the wealthiest families in New England,
especially in Boston, who, stimulated by the unwise policy of the
government, had entered largely into the business, were reduced
to absolute want; and some of our richest capitalists to a state
of the most unenviable embarrassment.
The iron masters here, then, must do as those engaged in the
same business do in England and Wales, when the price of the
metal is low, introduce improved and cheaper methods of manufacturing it, extinguish such blasts as are not wanted and more
than supply the demand, and wait for that improvement, which
is sure to come soon, and will give them employment again.
Calling upon the government to lay new burdens on one class
of the people for the benefit of another, " to support a business
(to use Mr. Webster's expressive words) which will not support
itself," would be neither just nor expedient, and in the end
would prove injurious to the manufacturers themselves. This is
proved by the history of similar attempts in England and in other
countries.




16
Some facts, which I have to adduce in confirmation of' this
assertion, and some further observations upon iron in general, will
form the subject of my next communication.
I remain, very respectfully,
Your most obedient servraet,
S. D. BRADFORDD.
To the Hon. William M. Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, D. C.
West Roxbury, near Boston, 4th Feb., 1850.
SIR-I promised in my last letter to adduce some facts to
prove that high protective or prohibitory duties are injurious to
the manufacturers themselves, and also to offer some further remarks upon the subject of iron.
Let us look then at the example of England, which for so
many centuries pursued a restrictive and prohibitory policy. In
1840 the house of commons appointed a committee comprising
the names of some of the most eminent statesmen in the kingdom, to thoroughly investigate the restrictive system. Amongst a
great number of witnesses, who were called, was Mr. William Leaf,
an extensive silk merchant in London, who, in speaking of the
silk trade, thus testified: " When I first knew Manchester, which
was about the year 1816 or 1817, there was but one silk manufacturer there, and he upon a very small scale, and even up to
the year 1825, when the reduction on silk took place, there were
but ten silk manufacturers in Manchester. I estimated the whole
return of Manchester in silk goods then at ~450,000, and now
(1840) the return in goods, entirely silk, is from ~1,600,000 to
~1,800,000 per annum." He added, "The distress, which so
frequently visited Spitalfields, during the term of prohibition, has
never returned to the same extent since French goods were introduced. Though silk is at this moment higher than it has been
for the last ten years, yet goods range now from 20 to 30 per
cent. lower than they did in 1825 and 1826, arising entirely fron




17 
improved modes of manufacture., stimulated by Che competition
arising fronm a freer state of trade.'.
And upon the same occasion, the late James Deacon Hume
on being asked if it was his opinion "that protection is always
imposed at the expense of the consumer," answered "I think
that is manifest. I have always considered that the increase of
price in consequence of protection amounted to a tax. I pay it
with regret, because it does not go to the revenue of the country.
I must be taxed a second time for the state. It is tempting parties to embark in a trade by a fictitious support, which in the end
may prove a fallacious one. I have often wondered how any
rulers could consent to incur the responsibility of such a policy."
The authority of Mr. Hume, as a sound political economist, and,
what some persons may value much more, as one who had had
the largest experience, having been in the British customs thirtyeight years, and for eleven years a member of the board of trade,
acting as the very high priest of monopoly and protection, at a
time when the duties were nearly all protective or prohibitory,
may be considered, I think, as beyond appeal; and I would venture to recommend his reasonings and statements upon the subject now under consideration, (should they have escaped your
notice,) to your particular and careful attention. He is often
quoted as an authority by Sir Robert Peel, and most of the
changes recommended by him in the British tariff in 1840, have
been since adopted, and have produced the most beneficial effects.
But to return to the subject of iron; many persons I apprehend are not aware how heavy the duty and charges upon it are
already, amounting to 57,- per cent. ad valorem; so that a ton of
iron costing in England ~5 16s 11id, cannot be landed in this
country under $40 9'2-100.  Some manufacturers, it is said,
have admitted that these charges are high enough, but demand
that the duty should be specific so as always to remain the same,
or should be regulated by a sliding scale. Thus far, however, I
have seen no good reason assigned for the adoption of either plan.
The ad valorem system has many and great advantages over all
others, on which account it was adopted by Mr. Hamilton at the
3




commencement of our republic, and has been continued ever
since. The protectionists themselves, whatever they may allege
against it now, must have approved the system highly, when they
arranged the tariff of 1842, (of which they always speak in such
terms of panegyric) as out of a revenue of 102 millions of dollars
collected under it, 60 millions were levied upon the ad valorenm
principle.
As respects adopting a sliding scale, that has become a byword. It sounds harshly to the ears. It was in England a
weapon taken from the armory of want and starvation to compel
the poor to buy dear bread, or none at all.
Let it not be introduced into this land of plenty to enhance the
price of iron, or any other necessary of life. Why should the
government become the makers of sliding scales or of any other
contrivances to guard the iron masters against those fluctuations
in trade, to which they are subject in common with the agriculturalist, the merchant, and the manufacturers of other articles?
The constitution authorizes congress "to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts, and excises" for revenue, and not for protection.
If by impolitic laws it compels one individual to purchase of another a domestic production at a higher price than he could procure one of foreign manufacture of the same quality, is not the
buyer impoverished to the extent of the difference in the price,
and is the country made richer for it? This and similar questions have been often asked, and it is time they should receive a
satisfactory answer.
But it seems that the iron masters did not think it expedient
to await the assembling of congress, and the Philadelphia papers
announced in November last that at a meeting of the iron masters of Pennsylvania assembled at Pittsburgh the following resolution was proposed and adopted: —
c"Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention, at the
present state of the foreign market, that it will require a duty of
$10 a ton on pig iron, and $20 per ton on common bar, and a
corresponding increase on all other iron and manufactures of iron,
in proportion to cost of make. to protect the American market."




19
The present cost of pig iron in England and Wales being
~'2 11 s 6d, or $11 44-100, the duty called for amounts to about
87~ per cent. on the value abroad; and if there be added to this
the other expenses of importation, premium on exchange, freight,
insurance, &c., amounting to 274: per cent. more, the whole protection claimed is 115 per cent.! The present cost of bar iron
being ~5 16s lid, or ~25 97-100, the duty asked for is equal
to about 77 per cent. on the foreign value, or adding the other
expenses of importation, equal to a protective duty of 104~ per
cent.!
No one can accuse these Pennsylvania gentlemen of excessive
modesty in the call they have made for legislative aid; but I hlave
deemed this meeting worthy of particular mention on account of
the remarkable similarity of the proceedings at Pittsburgh in 1849
to those, which took place at Harrisburg in the same state in
August, 1827. Every one may not remember the fatmous convention, which assembled there, to stimulate the government to
enact the tariff of 1828. Thirteen states were represented by
delegates.  Messrs. H. Niles from Maryland, C. J. Ingersoll, T.
Ewing, and J. Tallmadge were of the number.  They assembled
in the " splendid hall" of the state; and after having made the
protestations of patriotism and duty to their constituents and
"the American system," usual in similar assemblies called together to overawe the government, they proceeded to business.
Mr. H. Niles, of Maryland, was selected to prepare " an address
to the people of the United States," in which he made the following declaration, in the spirit of which our legislators have
since made so many unjust and prohibitory laws. "The constitution of the United States, he said, was made for the farmers,
manufacturers, and mechanics; not for the merchants; the last
being only a small number of the whole! "
This new method of expounding the constitution by the gentlemen from Maryland may possibly surprise some persons not so
well versed in the study of that instrument.  It would probably
have produced quite a sensation in 1787, when the convention,
assembled in Philadelphia to form a constitution were about to




adopt the eighlth section of article first, A to regulate commerce
with foreign nations and among the several states," had some
member risen in his place and opposed it, alleging that "the
constitution was not to be made for the merchants, they being
only a small portion of the whole."  Another member charged
with making a report upon "the British trade and prohibitory
laws," in speaking of the corn laws and other prohibitory imposts
of England, said, "Were the British ports now open to the reception of our grain at a fair rate of duty, the fee of Pennsylvania'would be worth a hundred millions of dollars more than it now
is, and her 1,200,000 freeman would rejoice, whilst the sweat
poured down their manly brows, in the fatness of their fields, the
capacity of their barns, and just reward of their honest and honorable labor.  We do not speak without thought, for if by the
increased demand abroad the price of flour should be advanced,
as it certainly would be, that advance would be obtained on all
the surplus products of all farmers, whether for foreign or domestic use."  These are sound free trade doctrines, and would
no doubt receive the full concurrence of Mr. Cobden or Mr.
Walker. But if the fee of Pennsylvania would have been worth
in 1827 a hundred millions of dollars more " if the British would
have opened their ports to our grain at a fair rate of duty," what,
it may be inquired, may the value be now, in the opinion of the
same honorable member and of the protectionists in general,
when not only our grain and cotton, but most of our provisions
also, are admitted without any duty whatever? Is it generous,
is it honest, under such circumstances, to call upon the government to increase the duty upon any article produced by Great
Britain beyond the rate required to raise the revenue necessary
for the support of government, and the gradual extinction of the
national debt?
But what especially deserves our notice in the proceedings of
the convention of 1827 is the resolution offered and adopted
upon iron, which recommended an increase of the duty from
18 to 22_ a ton, "which would really have the effect, it was
said, to furnish the article cheaper to the coisumer, because the




homLe msarket would be secured for the hoame supply."  As the
price of bar iron in Great Britain at that time (1827) was ~9
1Os instead of ~5 16s lid, its present value, the duty then asked
for was only about 50 per cent. instead of 77, the rate now required. What a comment do these proceedings offer upon the
allegation so often made by the protectionists that " by the aid of
a protecting duty to sustain and encourage the first attempts of an
infant manufacture, the assistance of the government will soon
cease to be required, and that competition amongst the manufacturers themselves will insure at all times an ample supply of a
superior quality, and at a reduced price! "
Does not this seem to prove that protected manufacturers are
like spoiled children-never satisfied with any given quantity of
kindness, but always clamoring for more? In the latter, as in
the former case, the only expedient method of proceeding is to
act with firmness and decision, and to all unreasonable requests
to return a prompt and peremptory answer in the negative.
This will be the duty of the congress now assembled at Washington; and the people, their constituents, will not fail to watch
their proceedings with vigilance.
In my next communication I propose to point out the causes,
which have produced the present depression in the iron business,
and to conclude the observations I have to offer upon the proposal to increase the duty on iron.
I remain, very respectfully,
Your most obedient servant,
S. D. BRADORDo.
To the Hlon. William M. Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, D.C.
West Roxbury, near Boston, 5th Feb., 1850.
SIR-I proceed now to state the causes, which have in my
opinion produced the present depression in the iron trade; and I
would remark that if, as is asserted by some persons, the business
be in a very unsatisfactory condition, so that some masters have




curtailed their operations, and others, who depended upon bor-.
rowed capital, possessed fewer local advantages, or did not avail
themselves of the best and most scientific methods of manufacturing, have been compelled to abandon their works altogether, it
requires no great wisdom to assign the cause. It has in fact been
assigned in 1847 by the iron masters themselves, and is contained
in two words protection and over-production, caused by the
tariff of 1842, which it is now attempted to restore. I have before me a pamphlet entitled " Pennsylvania the Pioneer of Internal Improvement. The coal and iron trade, embracing statistics
of Pennsylvania; a series of articles published in the Philadelphia
Commercial List, in 1847, prepared by C. G. Childs, editor."
This pamphlet contains an account of several conventions of the
iron masters from 1830, and ends with that called "The Committee of the Iron and Coal Association of the state of Pennsylvania, which met in Philadelphia on the 9th January, 1846;"
from whose report it appears that up to 1842 the charcoal furnaces in Pennsylvania amounted to 206, producing
173,369 tons.
The anthracite amounted to 7, producing 16,487
tons together, say -                       189,856  "
New charcoal furnaces since 67, producing - -   75,200  "
New anthracite 36, producing -    - - -      103,000
Total 316 furnaces, producing -  - - -       368,056
Increase on old furnaces   - - - -   37,971
"   on new   "                    178,200
216,171          "
more than 100 per cent. since the bill of 1842, and requiring a
capital of $ 14,669,818 in the rude state of the metal, and of
$20,201,400 in its converted state. These figures are taken
from the pamphlet itself.
What bill, it may be asked, could have produced such an
extraordinary increase as the above in four years and three
months, in a country where the population requires twenty-three
years to double its numbers? The answer is the tariff of 1842,




~23
which laid a duty of $17 a ton on iron in bars not rolled, of $25,
on iron rolled and railroad iron, and of $9 on pig iron.
In 1830 the production of iron in the United States was estimated at only 163,542 tons, whereas, here in a single state we
find an increase of 1216,171 tons in four years and three months!
Well might the editor of the pamphlet exclaim, after giving
the above statements, and alluding particularly to the anthracite
furnaces, " the increase of this branch of the iron trade in this
state (Pennsylvania) has no parallel in history." Who can wonder that the iron masters, having doubled their production in the
time mentioned, under the influence of the vicious and impolitic
stimulus furnished by the government, should in some instances
find themselves embarrassed, and in want of sufficient customers
to take off this extraordinary supply? No doubt in some cases
the loss of capital will be heavy, as must always happen
when a revulsion comes in a business, which has been pushed
beyond its natural capacity and bounds by what is called " the
fostering care of government." Let it be a warning to our legislators in all coming time, never to fall into the same lamentable
error again.
The sum then of the whole matter is this:  It having been
ascertained from an inspection of the invoices that the average
cost of common bar iron imported into New York from the 1st
of March to the 1st of September 1849 was ~5 16s lid, and
the duty and expense of importation being 57.c per cent. ad
valorem, the article can be laid down in any of our Atlantic cities
at a cost of $40 92-100. The iron masters in their convention
at Pittsburg require a duty of $20 per ton, which would enhance
the cost to $53 for the imported, and also fix the value of the
domestic article at the same or a higher price. If then the annual
consumption be 800,000 tons, as has been estimated by some of
the most extensive manufacturers themselves, and the demand
of the iron masters having been granted, the people shall be
called upon to pay even $53 per ton for what they could otherwise have obtained for $40 92-100, the difference would amount
to $9,664,000 per ann.um. If the manufacturers could obtain




~67 50-100, the price asked, and obtainedl too in August 1847,
it would amount to $21,264,000.
Not one dollar of this large sum would go into the public
treasury, but into the pockets of the iron masters, and would thus
be a tax upon the farmers, merchants, and other consumers of
iron, amounting to about a third of the annual revenue of the
United States.  Can it be possible that any respectable numnber
of senators or representatives in congress will be found to vote
for such an unjust and unnecessary burden?  We all remember
what an outcry was made when iMr. Walker, to sustain tihe creditr
of the country during an expensive foreign war, called for a duty
of three millions only on tea and coffee, especially by our brethren
in the west. Will they ever consent to lay this heavy duty on
iron imported principally from the country, which has now become
the best customer for their breadstuffs and provisions?
Formerly the city of Boston alone imported from  Sweden
15,000 to 17,000 tons of iron per annum. The importations at
present amount to only about 3000 tons. Our annual importations from Russia amounted a few years since to 7000 tons,
whereas in 1848 they were only 1000 tons, and last year were
only 600 tons.
In 1826, the whole exports of the products of the United
States, as stated in 1827 by Mr. H. Niles of Maryland, amounted
to only $20,413,216, of which $18,604,094 was in cotton and
tobacco, leaving for all the rest only $1,809,112.  In 1848, not
1847, the year of famine (as it is called by the protectionists,)
Great Britain took from us in domestic exports, cotton, rice, tobacco, breadstuffs, provisions, &c., of the value of $64,222,268,
exclusive of specie. During this same year ending 30th June,
1848, our exports of breadstuffs and provisionss only amounted
to the sum of $37,472,751, being more than double the average
annual export under the tariff of 1842. Our tonnage increased
during the same time from 2,839,046 to 3,150,502 tons. The
total revenue was $31,757,070 96-100, being more by nearly
eight millions than the annual average of the revenue during the
tariff of 1842.




It had been predicted in 1846, by the protectionists, that "in
case our imports should amount to $140,000,000 under Mr.
Walker's proposed tariff, our coin would have to be exported to
meet the deficiency; that if they should fall short of that sum, we
should have an empty treasury, and that our exports would not
increase with our imports."  Time has shown the fallacy of all
these predictions, our imports having been during the year ending
30th June, 1848, $154,977,876, and our exports $154,032,131.
The treasury, in the mean time, instead of being empty, was
always well supplied, and the demands upon it met with the greatest promptitude; the government having in June negotiated a loan
of $16,000,000 at a premium of nearly half a million, at the moment of the termination of a long and expensive war, leaving a
national debt of $65,000,000. Had not the tariff of 1842 been
repealed there is good reason to believe that the public debt in
October, 1848, would have amounted to $93,000,000.
If any occurrences of a similar character can be found in the
previous history of our country during the days of protective or
prohibitory duties, I have been unable to find the page, where
they are recorded. Our intelligent brethren of the south and the
west cannot have failed to have noticed all these evidences of
prosperity and national advancement since 1846, and to have
connected them with the changes then made in our commercial
policy. Any attempt to restore a different policy, which has been
tried and found wanting, cannot and will not succeed.
The iron masters, if they were wise and far-sighted, would not
desire to disturb the tariff of 1846, and to produce another inflation of the business, such as has occurred since 1842. One of
their own number has recently stated in a letter published in the
Philadelphia and Washington papers, "that the profits are now
fully equal to those of any other kind of business;" and he computes the cost of manufacturing pig iron in Pennsylvania with
anthracite coal at from   12 to $15 a ton; whereas the cost of a
ton of the same imported into New York or Philadelphia he estimates at $21 90-100. "The business is now, he says, overdone,
but the demand is gradually growing upon the supply, and if the
tariff is let alone, the business will, in another year, be healthful
4




and prosperous."  This prediction may or may not be fulfilled in
the time mentioned; but that the iron business "if left alone"
will presently become profitable and prosperous again, cannot be
doubted by any one, who has watched its course either in Great
Britain or this country; and no person will deny that immense
fortunes were made by the iron masters many years since, when
the duty was 7~ to 15 per cent., and long before the process of
manufacturing by anthracite coal had been introduced.  That
dates onlv fronm 1840.
The annual production of iron in England and Wales is estimated in your report at 1,200,000 tons. You have not given the
authority, upon which this statement is made; but if it be correct,
those countries must have sadly retrograded in the production of
the metal. for, when Sir John Guest was called, in 1840, before a
committee of the House of Commons to give his evidence upon
the article, he stated " that the produce of iron in those countries
had been raised from 125,000 tons in 1796 to more than 1,500,000 tons in 1839."  This extract I have made from a copy of
the parliamentary papers, and I am the more particular in calling
your attention to it, as otherwise the estimate, I have given of the
American production, 800,000 to 1,000,000 of tons, might appear
extravagant.  Sir John Guest, at the time he gave this evidence,
was one of four iron establishments in South Wales, which produced above one quarter of the whole amount of iron manufactured in the empire. If it were necessary to assign any further
reasons why the duty on iron should not be increased, it might be
added that the money derived from it is wanted to meet the current expenses of government, and pay the interest upon the
national debt. After the passage of the tariff of 1842 raising the
duty, the revenue derived from iron and manufactures of iron
from October, 1842, to 30th June, 1843, amounted to only
$902,054 83-100. The next year it reached the sum of $2,477,342 35-100, but under the reduced tariff of Mr. Walker during
the year ending the 30th June, 1848, it amounted to the enhanced sum of $3,736,223 20-100; and during the year ending
the 30th June, 1850, it will probably reach the sum of $ 5,000,000.




27'The fact that the way to augment the alnount of revenue derived
from an article is to lower the duty to a revenue standard, and
not to increase it, so as to make it protective or prohibitory, is
too well establisLed now to require further argument; and yet in
your report, surrounded as you are on every side with the evidences of the truth of this proposition, you have recommended
raising the duties to obtain more revenue.  Of all the positions
assumed by you this, if I mistake not, will be considered the most
extraordinary, unsound, and paradoxical. One would have supposed that the state of the post office receipts, since the rates
have been reduced, not only in Great Britain but in the United'
States also, as exhibited in the postmaster general's report, might
have furnished you with a safe andi useful guide in preparing a
programme for a tariff of duties upon imports.
It cannot be denied that the theory of monopoly and protection, under whatever aspect the subject may be viewed, is founded
upon scarcity as its principal support.  it is a system, which
looks upon plenty and abundance not as blessings to be desired,
but as a calamity to be deprecated and avoided.  It is akin to the
error, which induces the workmen in times of mainufacturing distress, to band together and break the machinery in the factories
and workshops because it increases the quantity of manufactures,
and, as they ignorantly suppose, lowers the wages of labor. The
protectionist papers in announcing the arrival of several packets
from Liverpool or Havre at New York with woollens, cottons,
linens, and silks for the supply of our wants, are accustomed to
speak of our being " inundated with goods," as if some destructive river had broken through its boundaries, or what they call at
New Orleans a crevasse, had taken place.
The American Congress ever since 1816, with one or two short
intervals, have been passing laws to sustain this fallacy; for high
tariffs can only accomplish their work by enhancing the price
of commodities in one mode or another.  The legislators, the
manufacturers, the politicians, who cater for the taste of the multitude, and traffic in patriotism by professions of their devotion to
what they call' the American system," all sustain the sophism
that scarcity is to be desired. T'hey seem unconscious that man




is a being, who consumes as well as produces, and that if, as a
seller, his interest be promoted by having the article he deals in,
dear and scarce, yet as a buyer a cheap market and abundance
are what he most desires.  The iron masters would have a
monopoly of iron; the owner of coal mines one of coal; and the
manufacturer of cottons, woollens, &c., would have foreign importations prohibited, to give him 1" the supply of the home market."  The consumer on the other hand desires that all these
articles may be abundant, and that he may supply his wants at
the most moderate prices. Surely, then, when the government
interposes its authority, and passes laws in favor of one class, and
that consisting of the smaller number against the rights and interests of the other classes, which compose the majority, it seems to
me to exercise a power, which may be usurped by a despot, but
should never be conferred by the suffrages of a free and intelligent community upon their rulers. These truths would appear
to be simple and obvious enough, and yet how little have they
been heeded, until recently, by governments and legislators.
Even now we find persons amongst us of talents and education,
and filling an elevated rank in society, who continue to speak of
what they sneeringly call "free trade" as " an abstraction," "a
dream," "a chimera," which it is impossible, were it desirable, to
reduce to practice, whilst daily experience teaches us that every
one is in fact a free trader, so far as his actions can prove him to
be so; as no person ever knowingly goes to a dear shop to purchase what he wants, but always to that, which can supply him
with the best article at the lowest price. All commerce is conducted on this principle, and ever must be. It is only after some
men have become interested in a manufactory that they begin to
protest against using foreign productions, and "employing the
pauper labor of Europe," and talk loud about "philanthropy"
and " the home market," "patriotism" and rich dividends of 18
per cent. per annum.
These remarks upon free trade and protection are not made
with any unfriendly feelings towards the iron masters of Pennsylvania, or the manufacturers of New England.  I am perfectly
aware how unwelcome such observations will be to the great




majority of the people of Boston and its vicinity, where a most
bigoted and illiberal spirit prevails on subjects of this character,
so that to him, who entertains and openly professes such opinions
may be literally applied the words of the Latin satirist,
"Non uxor salvum te vult, non filius; oinnes
Vicini oderunt, noti, pueri atque puellse."
They may appear futile and unpalatable to you also, since you
have become a member of General Taylor's cabinet; but the
principles, I have endeavored to establish, I believe to be founded
upon truth and justice, and that sooner or later they will be adopted by those, who deserve the name of statesmen, everywhere.
The last steamer only from Liverpool brought the announcement that the president of the French nation was about to have
"his tariff of duties revised with reference to some important
reductions;" " that the Dutch, encouraged by the example of the
English, were about to take measures to repeal their navigation
laws;" and last though not least that " the representative of her
majesty Queen Victoria, at St. Petersburgh, had opened negotiations with the minister of the Emperor Nicholas, with the view
of increasing the commercial relations between the two nations."
It is added that "a considerable change is contemplated in the
import duties on articles of British manufacture, and in cotton
especially a great though gradual ad valorem reduction will be
made." By this you will perceive that you have lost already
your most faithful and trustworthy ally the Emperor of all the
Russias in sustaining longer the restrictive system, which you are
endeavoring to restore. But I am not sure that even this will
have any effect in inducing you to retrace your steps; for it is
impossible not to draw the inference both from your report and
your treasury circulars since, that you do not expect to continue
in the service of the nation long, when you probably intend to
return to Philadelphia, and " order your buggy for the home circuit again."
It will not answer longer to assert that free trade must fail
unless adopted by the nations in general. The contrary of this
has been proved by the example of Great Britain, which has ever
since 184o2 been fighting the hostile tariffs of other countries by




30
free imports, and always gaining the victory. For six years before
1842, the year in which the English tariff began to be modified,
the annual exports of the United Kingdom, being British produce
and manufactures, amounted to ~49,296,895, whereas the annual exports during the six succeeding years have been found to
be ~56,742,297.
Such results as these offer very little inducement to return to
monopoly or protection; and although the Duke of Richmond,
Earl Stanhope, Col. Sibthorpe, or Mr. Disraeli, in their present
agitation of the subject of free trade and protection, may receive
the support of needy noblemen or landlords, whose estates are
heavily mortgaged, and who cannot or will not reduce their rents,
they will receive very little sympathy from the people at large.
These gentlemen complain bitterly of the present price of wheat,
40s. 9d. stg. a quarter, and impute it to the repeal of the corn
laws. They have probably forgotten that the price in 1835 was
only 36s., when the corn laws, enacted expressly to raise the
price of food and land, were in full operation, and the cry of
agricultural distress was heard from one end of England to the
other.
I have already alluded to the specific duties, which you so
much approve; but upon that part of your report, in which you
recommend that "the ad valorem duties shall be levied on the
market value in the principal markets of our country at the time
of arrival," I do not design at present to say a single word. The
suggestion is so " childish," (to borrow a word from the London
Times, in their review of your report,) and, I will add, so utterly
impracticable too, that I incur no risk in asserting that no committee of congress will be found to entertain such a proposition
for a moment.
I will here conclude what I had proposed to say upon the
increase of duty, which you have recommended on iron, by which
you will perceive, I trust, that if I would oppose an increase of
duties in general, it is because I believe such an augmentation
would be unjust to the people at large, and if rightly understood,
unfavorable to the best interests of the manufacturers themselves.
This opinion, if I am not deceived, is daily acquiring advocates,




31
not only in our halls of legislation, but amongst the people themIselves; and therefore whenever the subject of repealing the tariff
of 1846 shall come before congress, I shall confidently expect to
see the project rejected by a large and decisive vote.  The
country, it seems to me, is ready for the question now; nor will
the friends of free trade and of a liberal commercial system shrink
from the trial, let it come when it may.
I remain, very respectfully,
Your most obedient servant,
S. D. BRADFORD.
To the Hon. William M. Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, D. C.
West Boxbury, near Boston, 6th Feb., 1850.
SIR-In several former communications I have taken occasion
to address you upon the subject of iron; and if I have felt con
strained to express my sentiments freely upon the increase of
duty, which you have thought it expedient to recommend upon
that article, the addition, you would have imposed upon coal, may
be considered perhaps even more surprising and objectionable.
The remarks heretofore made upon the former as an essential
necessary of life, of almost universal use, and vast consumption
apply perhaps with still greater force to the latter.
The history of the coal trade is of too recent date, and too
familiar to almost every one, to require more than a passing
notice. Anthracite coal was first used in this country upon tidewater in 1820, and the total quantity dug from the mines and
sent to market in that year amounted to only 365 tons. For a
long time the difficulty of kindling it prevented its coming into
general use. After, however, this obstacle had been overcome,
the consumption increased at a rapid pace for several years. In
1821 it nearly trebled, having reached 1073 tons. In 1822 the
quantity received in Philadelphia from the various mines in Pennsylvania amounted to 2240 tons; and it went on increasing from
year to year at a rate never probably conceived of in any other
country, until in 1846, the last year of the tariff of 1842, (under




3,2
which the duty on imported coal was $ 1 75 a ton,) it amounted
to 2,077,280 tons.
In 1847, the first year of Mr. Walker's tariff, which reduced
the duty from $1 75 a ton to 30 per cent. ad valorem, (equal to
an average of about 60 cents a ton upon the several costs and
qualities imported,) the quantity received from the mines at
Philadelphia reached the unprecedented amount of 2,615,630
tons, and in 1848 it was still larger. So immense had the trade
become, that in 1846 the total number of clearances from the
port of Philadelphia of vessels or boats loaded with anthracite
coal amounted to 8953, carrying 1,065,228 tons; in addition to
the quantity shipped in boats from the Lehigh mines. The article has come into extensive uses for domestic purposes, for producing steam in manufactories, for propelling steamboats and
railway locomotives, and since 1840 for the manufacture of iron.
One company alone in Philadelphia, the Reading Railroad, has
already expended the vast sum of $16,000,000 in conveying
part of the above mentioned quantity from the mines in the interior of Pennsylvania to tide-water, at or near Philadelphia.
Having glanced thus at the origin and rapid increase of the
coal trade in Pennsylvania, I proceed to inquire what may be the
foreign competition, with which it has to contend, of which such
severe complaints are made by the protectionists. On reference
to official documents I find the rivalry to be with Great Britain
and Nova Scotia, and that the total amount of coal imported
amounted in
1842 to    -   -   -   -    141,526 tons.
1843 "-                         41,163
1844      -   -   -    -        87,073  "
1845 "  -   -   -    -   -  85,771
1846 "    -   -    -           1.56,853'
511,860
making the average annual importation for the term of five consecutive years 102,373 tons, equal to less than one-fifth of the
increase of Pennsylvania coal in a single year from 1846 to 1847,
and amounting to about the quantity brought from the interior to
Philadelphia in a single month by the Reading Railway. The




33
above statements are given principally upon the authority of the
pamphlet before mentioned, by C. G. Childs, editor. The quantity imported during the year ending the 30th June, 1849, is
understood to have been 198,213 tons, and the present year will
probably show an increase upon even this amount.
The truth is there is an increase since 1846 in the importation
of almost every article, which conduces to the comfort and wellbeing of the community, as well as an increase in the exports of
our surplus products; which the advocates of free trade predicted
would take place from the beginning. The effects produced by
our present liberal tariff are being more and more developed
daily, and are visible in the unexampled prosperity of the country
in all its diversified pursuits. The people were never before so
abundantly fed, so comfortably clad, nor so well employed, at
good wages too.
Who can have forgotten, soon after the passage of Mr. Clay's
impolitic and prohibitory tariff of 1828, the prostrate condition ofour foreign commerce, the numerous bankruptcies amongst the
manufacturers, for whose special benefit it had been made, and
the general derangement of commercial affairs? Our numerous
shipyards were deserted, and the operatives without employment.
Our exports of domestic produce from 1828 to 1832, the year of
the compromise, averaged only $58,049,281 per annum. The
average from 1832 to 1837, under the reduced duties of the compromise act, was $91,002,407.
What a change do we witness now! A short time since a
statement was made of the number of vessels which had been
built in New York and launched, or were then upon the stocks
in 1849, and they consisted of 8 steamships, 18 steamboats, 25
ships, 3 barks, 4 schooners, 6 ferryboats, and 3 sloops, say 67
vessels, having a tonnage of 63,675 tons. In Massachusetts, and
especially in Maine also, the shipbuilders, it is believed, were
never so full of orders. In the small village of Medford, five miles
from Boston, containing in 1840 only 2478 inhabitants, there
were built and launched last year twenty-one vessels, most of
them large ships, of admirable workmanship and beauty of pro5




34
portion, having a tonaage of 13,250 tons. In the district of
Bath, in Maine, there were also built in 1849 forty-four vessels,
and the tonnage was 22,263 tons. So certain is it that a nationl
has only to establish wise and liberal regulations amongst its own
people and with foreign nations, and navigation and commerce
are sure to flourish there. The greater freedom they have the
better, and above all, let the custom house regulations be simple,
uniform, and changed as seldom as possible.  "Le commerce,"
says a celebrated French author, "( est comme certaines sources:
si vous voulez detourner leur cours, vous les faites tarir."
In watching the wonderful progress of our country since 1837
every candid observer must have perceived, I think, that the two
great measures, to which we owe not only ouir prosperity but our
stability also, are the tariff of 1846, and the sub-treasury act.
For the first we are indebted to the clear judgment and unwearied
perseverance of Mr. Walker, never forgetting the patriotic and
intrepid conduct of the vice president, Mr. Dallas, in giving the
casting vote; and for the latter to the wisdom and patriotism of
Mr. Van Buren. Let our gratitude be in proportion to the value
of the benefits conferred.
But let us inquire in what respects the owners of coal mines in
Newcastle England, or Nova Scotia have any particular advantages over those of Pennsylvania, that the latter should be deemed
entitled to any special protection by government. The invoices
and documents before me are not of a character to authorize any
such addition of duty as probably will be asked for, nor indeed
any increase at all. The cost price of a ton of Newcastle coal
landed at Boston, New York, or Philadelphia, is about $7 30-100,
and of Sydney $4 to $4 25-100. This supposes the shipment
-to be made at the most favorable season of the year, and at a
reasonable rate of freight.
The cost of anthracite in the above named cities is about $4
75 to $5; $4 50 to $4 75; and $2 75 to $3 30; by which it
will be seen that the Newcastle costs the consumers nearly double
the price of the domestic article, and that the price of Nova Scotia
coal is nearly the same as that of anthracite. Why, under these




35
circumstances, should more duty be asked for, except to give the
coal owners in Pennsylvania a monopoly, and thus enable them
to compel the consumers to pay them an enhanced rate?
Thus far my remarks have related principally to anthracite coal
found in Pennsylvania; but mines of bituminous have been discovered in Cumberland in the state of Maryland, and are now
coming into use, especially on board steamers engaged in long
voyages, where the best article is required, and it is said to be
superior for that purpose to any found even in South Wales.
The owners, it is alleged, offer now to deliver it at Boston or
New York at $ 6 525 per ton; and next year, when a certain
canal is finished, expect to deliver it at $5 a ton. As coal
twanted for similar purposes cannot be imported from South Wales
for less than $6 to $6 25 the ton, why should the duty on foreign
coal be increased?
The statement, which has sometimes been made, that the
present duty is only about 45 cents a ton, would appear to be
incorrect. The custom house returns show it to be about 60 cents
on the whole average annual quantity imported. It is very evident that the coal business in Pennsylvania is progressing with a
speed never before equalled, and it would no doubt be greater
still if capital could be had to multiply the means of transportation from the mines to tide-water. The city of Boston is said to
have lent some millions of dollars to promote this object. London, New York, and other cities have done their part; but yet
capital is said to be wanted. The consumption of coal in Great
Britain was estimated in 1840 at fifteen millions of tons; but the
increase since must have been vast, and almost beyond belief.
But what further aggravates the unreasonableness of demanding a high protective or prohibitory duty upon foreign coal is that
it is a different article from the anthracite, is used for purposes
for which the latter would not be equally fit, and that to prevent
its importation would be, for the present at any rate, to deprive
the country of the privilege of using it. Should the owners of
the Cumberland mines be ever able to supply the demand, and
the quality prove as good as is anticipated, as the price is so low.




36
the coal of Great Britain or Nova Scotia may soon cease to be
wanted; but let us not in the meantime be left to the tender
mercies of the owners of the mines in Pennsylvania.
Besides to some persons the use of anthracite coal is exceedingly unpleasant, if not intolerable; and why should they be
deprived of the bituminous, or have to purchase it at a price
unnecessarily increased by the interference of government, not
for the sake of an increased revenue, but to enhance the profits
of certain owners of mines in Pennsylvania? Such a proposal
should receive no countenance in the national legislature; and
should the attempt be made by interested parties to induce congress to increase the duty on this essential article, I trust it will
be rejected with a unanimity and promptitude, which will prevent
any future enterprise of the same kind.
There are other recommendations in your report, of which it
would be easy to show the inexpediency or entire impracticability, as must be obvious to every experienced merchant. It does
not, however, seem advisable to discuss their merits or demerits
at the present time, when there appears no reason to suppose
that any committee can be found in congress to recommend any
material changes in a tariff, (much less its repeal) which has
so approved itself to the great majority of the people, and so admirably answered the purposes of those who framed it, and
caused it to be adopted. In conclusion then, it only remains for
me to add once more that
I remain, very respectfully,
Your most obedient servant,
S. D. BRADFORD.
To the Hon. William M. Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, D. C.