UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Class Book 337-^ FI17> Volume Ja 09-20M FACTS OF HIGH LOW PRICES Printed by Habeis & Heart, “Constitution” Office. i FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE. 4 . The taxing power in all Governments is most apt to be improperly exercised, and, therefore, should be most sedulously guarded. Whenever government has to substitute the indirect or im- post system of taxation in li&u of direct taxes, to raise the adequate revenue for defraying its legi- timate expenses, this tendency to exercise the taxing power unwisely and oppressively is greatly augmented. Our Federal Government having selected the indirect system of taxation, as being more congenial to the genius of our institutions, it becomes the constituent body, now that their Representatives have selected this more subtle and complex mode of levying con- tributions for the support of Government, to ex- amine minutely into the whole scope and opera- tion of the impost system upon all of the great interests of the country. Because, even admit- ting that mode of raising revenue, when fairly and justly'carried into practice, to be a good and proper one, yet, in its very nature, it is of all other systems most liable to be grossly abused When direct taxes are resorted to, we know at once what each man, and each section of the country, pays towards the support of Govern ment. Thus knowing what each one contributes, - we can easily detect unequal taxation as well as unequal disbursements. But it is within the ► power of Government to tax each man and each ^' as great division of the Republic equally, and yet by unequal disbursements benefit some sections of the country at the expense of the balance. It is yet more clear that if you combine unequal taxation with unequal disbursements, you will confer the greater benefits on the favored few, and impose the heavier burdens on the oppressed multitude. But the evil may be aggravated in a much higher degree. For you may, as is un- fortunately now our situation, under an impost system of taxation, not only effect the foregoing enormities, but, by its mysterious and refined de- vices, you may, .while taxing one section of the country to aggrandize some favored portion of the Confederacy, also exact contributions from particular branches of industry to foster and en- rich those employed in other pursuits. So, there- fore, by a sly and subtle process of indirect taxa- tion, imposed apparently for the equal benefit ol all persons and all sections of the country, we find, both from theory and sad experience, that one section may be taxed for the benefit of ano- ther, and that some branches of labor may be unnecessarily burdened to enhance the profits of a favored one. When any community has to bear the evils growing out of this compound mode of taxation, it is no less the duty than the interest of the constituent body, to give the Whole subject a thorough and impartial examina- tion. The doctrine of protecting American manu- factures is urged upon various pretexts. Some, of the champi@ns of what is termed the “Ameri- can system” say we must protect our American labor against the cheap pauper labor of Europe. This they propose to accomplish by taxing the cheap foreign goods when imported into the United States in exchange for our agricultural productions. By the way , I never heard a far- mer complain of being able to purchase cheap goods. Indeed, the more he gets in exchange for his crops, the better lor all parties. But, at the urgent solicitation of interested manufacturers. Congress passed a high protective tariff in 1842. As a consequence of that act, commerce and agriculture languish, and the people complain. And what think you is the cry now of these ta- riff gentry? Why that high duties m^ke cheap goods. Then, as their suicidal policy has reduced the value of our great agricultural staples, we propose to relieve them and the country from this painful dilemma by reducing the duties. If they are honest in their professions, they should most cheerfully accept our offer, since they admit that their protective tariff policy has had the fatal ef- fect ol degrading all classes of American labor, and thereby enabled our manufacturers to manu- facture cheaper than they can abroad. Strange as it may appear, they object to our relieving them from low prices, which was (he very evil that at first induced them to demands, high tariff. They either played the fool in asking for high duties, or else they are playing the knave in holding on to them. It is, however, “contrary to the first principles of common sense, that any lawmaking an addition to the cost of manufactured goods should be a reduction of the price,” and it would be most cruel to suppose that the manufacturers were in fact such stupid fellows, that in their effort - to legislate in favor of high prices, they should ; ; truth have legislated in favor of low prices. ; ;;t we all know that cheap goods are, in the i in, the result of low wages and reduced cost raw materials, in conjunction with the low rate of interest on the capital invested. These three e!( ments enable Europe to manufacture goods at less cost than we can in this country. But if our high tariff has enabled our manufac- turers to manufacture and sell their goods at cheaper rates than the foreign goods can be pur- chased at, we must conclude that low wages will follow low prices, that our capital has been ren- dered less productive, and that our staple produc- tions have, by the introduction of the high tariff policy, been reduced in value. So, therefore, the laboring classes are not benefited by the protec- tive tariff policy, nor are the producers of the raw materials. ' But, on the contrary, the want of employment for the mechanics and laboring peo- ple, and the low prices of our leading agricultural productions, all most clearly demonstrate the prostrating and ruinous tendency of the high ta- riff bill of 1842. That bill has reduced the wages of labor by destroying the profits of agriculture, and it illy becomes its friends to say it has cheap- ened goods, when it has thus destroyed our ability to purchase. We can only grant what is termed protection, or a system of indirect bounties, through the taxing power. No one objects to contributing his share towards defraying the legitimate expen- ses of Government, because they all equally parti- cipate in its blessings. But, when indirect legis- lative bounties are granted to foster any spe- cial class of industry — it can only be done by im- posing a tax, in the form of enhanced prices, on the people at large, or any particular section, and for the benefit of a favored few. If a piotective tariff' confers no pecuniary advantages in the shape of increased prices to the manufacturers, pray in what other way can it or does it benefit thenl ? The evil the manufacturers complain of is the competition of cheap foreign goods. Le- gislation is asked for by them to exclude or tax this, to them , much deprecated evil of cheap fo reign goods. Certainly if we grant their request, those asking it must expect, by taxing those fo- reign fabrics, to be enabled 10 obtain for their American manufactures higher prices. This being the object and the effect of protec- tive duties, the agricultural interests and the con- sumers generally, are most deeply interested in knowing, not only the extent of the tribute levied upon them for the emolument of the manufactu- rers, but also in knowing the depressing influence which the high tariff' policy exerts upon the va- lue of agricultural staples. However much in- clined our protective tariff advocates may be, after the passage of their exorbitant bill of 1842^, to promulgate the absurdity that “ high duties make cheap goods,” yet experience and history both prove conclusively, that high duties aug- ment the value of goods above the foreign market prices, while they reduce the value of our great agricultural staples, impede our commerce, and diminish the wages, of labor. But why should ih e people object to purchasing foreign goods at low prices? It is certainly the true interest of all to purchase in the cheapest, and to sell in the dearest markets. If the agriculturists" who con- stitute, in fact and in truth, the great laboring class of this Country, can purchase with their produce a larger amount of foreign goods than of American goods — or, in plain terms, if the foreigners will give our farmers and planters higher prices for their produce, and sell their ma- nufactured goods cheaper than any one else, why should our farmers be asked to act contrary to the plainest dictates of common sense, and indu- ced to sustain the passage of laws which cut them off from the best markets, and compel them un- der many disadvantages to resort to the worst. Suppose a farmer, when sending his flour to market, needs, for his family a given quantity of cotton cloth. He meets with a European mer- chant, and observes : Sir, I want to purchase one hundred yards of cotton cloth, and have but one barrel of flour which I can spend in that way; will you take my barrel of flour and fur- nish rne one hundred yards of cotton cloth? The merchant accepts his offer, and both parties are mutually pleased and benefited. But a Yan- kee standing by, and observing what is passing, calculates he could make money faster by appeal- ing to Congress to pass a law taxing the imported cottons one hundred per cent, which is about the present duty on cheap cotton cloth. The next season comes around, and the farmer takes ano- ther barrel of flour to marke t to get his supply of cotton cloth. But his European merchant in- forms him that Congress has, at the solicitation of the Yankee, passed a law taxing foreign cot- ton cloth one hundred per cent, so, therefore, he • has to add that tax to the cost of cotton cloth; he, therefore, cannot afford to sell him one hundred yards, under the change of facts, for less than two barrels of flour. Thus, under the high tariff system, the farmer gets only fifty yards of cotton cloth for his barrel of flour. He complains of this to the Yankee, who gravely answers that the tariff opens to him a home market for his bread-stuffs. The old farmer retorts, “that by your tariff, you force the farmers to pay you one hundred per cent, upon the foreign market price for your American cotton cloth, but you manu- facturers do not give them in return one cent more, but, indeed, less, for their bread-stuffs, than they got for them before the passage of the tariff'. 5 Now your tariff, to be just, should require the consumers of our bread- stuff's to pay thg farmers exactly the same rate per cent, above the foreign market prices, as the consumers of manufactured goods are madp to pay above the foreign rates. For all producers should be protected alike, and all consumers should be taxed alike.” The shrewd Yankee, thus hedged in, exclaims : “Ah, my dear sir, 1 see you are somewhat of an ab- stractionist, for you first confer a benefit- on the frianufacturers, and then propose, by protecting your bread-stuffs, to take it away.” The old farmer replies ‘that every honest man should do as he would be done by, and if the farmers first help the manufacturers to get high prices, why should not the latter, in return, be equally bound to aid the farmers in getting high prices, and then both would be protected alike.” In the great staple States, the mechanics of all descriptions are oppressed even more than the farmers and planters by this unjust tariff po- licy. For when agriculture is profitable, they share its riches; and when prices fall, they are thrown out of employment. The mechanics suffer, then, in a double capacity; for they are made to pay extravagant prices as consumers, while the system itself destroys the value of agri- cultural products, which alone Gifford them rich harvests, by presenting them full employment in their respective trades. All departments of industry are benefited by receiving ample rewards for their labor. The working man wants high wages — the mechanic full employment at fair rates, and the farmer and planter good .prices. But the general effect of high duties on imported goods, is a reduction of the wages of labor, as well as the value of our great agricultural staples. If the converse of this were true, the protective tariff policy would, by elevating the wages of labor and the price of the raw materials, induce our citizens to abandon manufactures. But the tariff policy does, in fact, diminish the wages of labor and reduce the value of our agricultural staples, by depriving us, to a great extent, of our foreign commerce, and cutting us off from the best markets, and thus by robbing others of their just profits by its insi- dious operations, it accumulates wealth to the manufacturers. With great propriety, this whole system of indirect bounties has been characterized as nothing more nor less than a measure ol le- galized plunder. In illustration of what has been stated, the an nexed tabular statements are referred to; and as they have been carefully prepared at the Treasu- ry Department, they may be relied upon as being correct. The facts which they present are clear and convincing, and the baneful influence of the high tariff policy upon the value of our great staples. Flour, Tobacco, and Cotton, deserve the most serious consideration of all those interested in farming and planting. The general and in variable consequence of a high tariff on imports, has been reduced prices of flour, tobacco and cotton. By a glance at the tables, it will be per- ceived that the periods of low and of high tariffs, are. separated and properly designated, with a statement appended containing the gross result in each particular period, and also the anual average quantity, annual average value, and the annual average price per barrel, or per hogshead, or per pound. As these tables contain a great amount of valuable and highly' interesting information, the constituent body may greatly profit by obser- ving with what general exactness the prices of produce advanced or declined, as the tariff wentup ordown. Experience wilisatisfy all rational minds- that high duties increase the price of the goods upon which they are imposed, and these tables- clearly demonstrate also that high duties, by im- peding and crippling our foreign commerce with unerring certainty, brought about a great decline in the value of our flour, tobacco, and cotton. Thus it is that the protective policy greatly en- hances the price of what goods we have to pur- chase, while it at the same lime greatly impairs our ability to buy, by diminishing' the value of our agricultural productions. Nor can those en- gaged in agriculture make up the deficiency in their receipts, by increased production. The ta bles prove in the most conclusive manner, that under the operation of high duties we may nearly or quite double or agricultural staples, and yet not realize as much as we did with smaller crops under a low scale of duties. It will be found, on examining the following table relating to flour, that, notwithstanding the boasted demands of a home market for bread stuffs, which the advocates of protection allege will be created by the operation of high duties, we exported, during their existence, annually,, on an average, a greater number of barrels of flour, and at reduced prices, than we did during the period of low duties. The following are stubborn facts, as the tables prove: our exports of flour averaged, per annum, from 1821 to 1824 inclusive, 909,370 barrels, at an average price per barrel, during that period, of $5 53. But from 1825 to 1832 inclusive, our exports of flour averaged per annum 1,017,162 barrels, at an average price per barrel, during that period, of $5 38. Here it is seen that, in the latter period, under the high tariff policy, we shipped more flour, and at less prices, than in the first. Bu we will hasten on 'to the next case in point. From 1833 to 1842 we exported an annual ave- rage of 946,287 barrels of flour, at an average price per barrel of $6 01 for the entire period. But though we exported, from 1825 to 1832, on an average perannum, 1,017,162 barrels of flour, and, from 1833 to 1842, only on an average per annum of 946,287 barrels; yet, strange as it may seem, our exports of flour, in the latter period brought annually into the country $222,141 more money than in the former. So, under a reducing scale of duties, the farmers received better prices for their flour, both at home and abroad. But from 1843 to 1844 we exported, on an average . / 6 per annum, 1,140,024 barrels of flour, at an ave- rage annual price per barrel of only $4 60. Not- withstanding the great increase in the average quantity per annum, from 1843 to 1844 inclusive, over the former period, from 1833 to 1842; yet the flour exported in the latter, during low duties, brought annually into the country $441 ,773 more money than the larger quantity exported since the passage of the present tariff law. The tables prove that, under both periods of high tariffs, the number of barrels of flour exported greatly in- ■crehsed over the quantity exported under the low tariffs, while the facts, as to the prices of the re- spective periods, were exactly reversed. For though we exported fewer barrels under the low tariffs, yet the v farmers obtained much better prices for their flour, and a much larger sum of money annually, on that account, came into the country. FLOUR. A statement exhibiting the quantity and value of Flour, exported annually from 1821 to 1844 in- clusive. Average Years. Barrels. "V alue. price per barrel. Exported in f 1821 1,056,119 4,298,043 $4 06 Low duties. < 1822 | 1823 827,865 756,702 5,103,280 4,962,373 6 16 6 55 i L.1824 996,792 5,759,176 5 77 | f 1825 813,906 4,212,127 5 17 i [ 1826 857,820 4,121,466 5 06 1827 868,492 4,420,081 5 08 High duties. ^ ! 1828 1 1829 860,809 837,385 4,286,939 5,793,651 4 98 6 91 1 1830 1,227,434 6,085,953 4 88 1 1831 1,806,529 9,938,458 5 50 1 1J832 864,919 4,880,623 5 64 fl833 955,768 5,613,010 5 73 I 1834 835,352 4,520,781 5 42 1 1835 779,396 4,394,777 5 63 1 1836 505,400 3,572,599 7 06 Low duties. ! 1837 318,719 2,987,269 9 3Q 1838 448,161 3,603,299 8 04 1839 923,151 6,925,170 7 50 1840 1,897,501 10.143,615 5 39 1841 1,515,817 7,759,664 5 19 1 842 1,283,602 7,375,356 5 74 High duties. | ; 1843 841,474 3,763,073 4 47 >1844 1,438,574 6,732,488 4 67 Exported in 4 years, from 1821 to 1824 3,637,478 20,122,872 Annual average - 909,370 5,030,718 5 53 Exported in 8 years, from 1825 to 1832 8,137,294 43,739,298 Annual average 1,017,162 5,467,412 5 38 Exported in 10 years, from 1833 to 1842 9,462,867 56.895,522 Annual average 946,278 5,689,553 6 01 Exported in 1843 and 1844 . 2,280,048 10,495,561 Annual average 1,140,024 5,247,780 4 60 TOBACCO. A statement exhibiting the quantity of Tobacco, in hogsheads, exported annually from 1821 to 1844. Average Years, Hhds. Value. price per - hhd. Exported in fl821 66,858 5,648,962 $84 Low duties. ^ | 1822 i 83,169 6,222,838 75 | 1823 99,009 6,282,672 63 h.1824 77,883 4,855,566 62 ri825 75,984 6,115,623 i 80 j 1826 64,098 5,347,208 83 1827 J 00,025 6,577,123 66 High duties. -> j 1828 1829 96,278 77,131 5,269,960 4,982,974 54 65 1830 83,810 5.586,365 67 1831 86,718 4,892,388 56 J832 106,806 5.999,769 56 ri833 83.153 5-755,968 69 1834 87,979 6,595,307 75 1835 94,353 8,250,577 87 1836 109,042 10,058,640 92 Low duties. ! 1837 1 1838 100,232 100,593 5,795,647 7,392,029 58 73 1839 78,995 9,832,943 112 1840 119,484 9,883,957 83 1841 147,828 12,576,763 85 L 1842 158,710 9,540,755 61 High duties. ^ ' 1843 94 454- 4,650,979 49 • 1844 163,042 8,385,555 51 Exported in 4 years from 1821 to 1824 326,919 23,010,038 Annual average - 81,730 5,752,509 70 Exported in 8 years, from 1825 to 1832 690,850 44,771,410 Annual average - 86,356^ 15,596,427 65 Exported in 10 years, from 1833 to 1842 1,080,369 85,682,524 Annual average .. 108,037 8,568,252 79 Exported in 1 843 and 1844 - 257,496 13 036,534 Annual average - 128,748 6,518,267 51 In turning to the tables explanatory of the to- bacco trade, we find a most extraordinary coinci- dence in nearly all the facts just explained in re- lation to the effect of high and low duties upon the exports as well as the price of flour, and that the same results attended the tobacco trade. A close examination of these tables presents to the mind a variety of important views. We find in the year 1843 a most tremendous falling off, both in the number of hogsheads as well as in the value of the tobacco exported. Indeed, in 1842, 1843, and in 1844, the annual average value per hogs- head was less than at any three preceding years since 1821, and the aggregate value of the entire exportation, for those three years, was greatly under that of the entire exportation for the next preceding three years. The annual average value, per hogshead, of tobacco exported from 1821 to 1824, was $70; from 1825 to 1832 it feU to $65 per hogshead ; from 1833 to 1842 it again rose up to $79 per hogshead 5 and from 1843 to 1844 it again fell down to $51 per hogshead. Some may suppose the quality of the crop may explain this; but in our calculations we have embraced Ions: periods during the existence of , ion, and high tariffs, and it is fair to infer that casualties would as frequently affect the esti- mates on one side as the other. The price per hogshead, the aggregate value, and the number >0 f hogsheads exported in each year since 1821, standout boldly in the tables, and demonstrate how oppressively the tariff policy acted upon this great staple of the planters. COTTON. Quantity and value of Cotton exported annually from 1821 to 1844. Years. Pounds. Value. Av ’ge price . Exported in ^1821 124,893,405 20.157,484 16.2 1822 144,675,095 24,035,058 16.6 Low duties. 1823 173.723,270 20,445,520 11.8 L 1824 142,369.663 21,947,401 15.4 ^1825 176,449,907 36,846,649 20.9 1826 204,535,415 25,025,214 12.2 1827 294,3:0,115 29,359,545 10.0 High duties. 1828 210,590,463 22,487,229 10.7 1829 264,837,186 26.575,311 10.0 1830 298,459,102 29,674,883 9.9 1831 276,979,784 25,289,492 9.1 J832 322,215,122 31,724,682 9.8 1 rl833 1834 324,698,604 36,191,105 11. 1 384,717,907 49,448,402' 12.8 1835 387,358.992 64,961,302 16.8 1836 423,631,302 71,284,925 16.8 Low duties. -< L837 444,211,537 63,240,102 14.2 183& 595,952,29? 61,556,811 10.3 1839 413.624,212 61,238,982 14.8 1840 743,941,061 63,870,307 8.5 1841 530,204,100 54,330,341 10.2 L1842 584,717,017 47,593,464 8.1 High duties. ^ C 1843 792,297,106 49,119,806 6.2 1 1844 663,633,455 54,063,501 8.1 Exported in 4 years from 1821 to 1824, 585,661,433 86,585,463 Annual average, 146,415,358 21,646,366 14.8 Exported in 8 years, from 1825 to 1832, 2,048,377,094 226,983,005 Annual average, 256,647,136 28,372,876 11.1 Exported in 10 years from 1833 to 1842, 4,833,057,029 573,715,741 Annual average, 483,305,703 57,371,574 11.8 Exported in 1843 and 1844, | Annual average, 1,455,930,561 727,965,280 103,183,307 51,591,653^ 7.087 Treasury Department, Register’s Office, Jan. 30, 1845. T. L. SMITH, Reg’r. I The tables setting forth the exports and value of cotton, annually, from 1821 to 1844, equally with those just examined, prove the singular ex- actness with which all of our great agricultural staples rise or fall as the duties upon imports go up or down. The present very low prices should induce the farmers and planters to inquire into the causes that produce such injurious results. It cannot be ascribed to over production, for that has been progressing since 1821; and by casting the eye over the table it will be plainly seen that, though the supplies were annually increasing, yet, as the tariff policy vibrated from high to low duties, the prices of our agricultural products also vibrated, in exact unison, from high to low. Look at the increased supplies of cotton from 1825 to 1832, and the fall in prices during that time, and then look at the increased supplies from 1832 to 1842, and mark the rise in prices in the latter period. But as soon as Congress passed the high tariff bill of 1842, behold how the price of cotton has fallen. From 1825 to 1832 there was an increase in the cotton crop of about 75 per cent., and the price fell from 14 cents per pound — which it had maintained during the foui preceding years, down to 11 cents the pound. But from 1833 to 1842, there was a similar increase of about seventy-five per cent, in the crop, but the price rose, nevertheless, a few mills per pound. From 1843 to 1844, thera was still about the same increase of seventy-five per cent, in the crop, but the price again fell to seven cents per pound. Certainly, in both in- stances, under high duties, the cotton crop, as there was about the regular rate of increase maintained, should, under all the boasted advan- tages of the home market, at least, have sold as high as it did under the descending scale of du- ties from 1832 to 1842. Thus we find that the- home market does not enhance the price of our agricultural staples, but we are forcibly taught the fact, that as you restrict commerce, you im- air the value of our exports; and on the other and, that, as you Liberate commerce from these restrictions, you thereby give an impulse to trade, and so augment their value. When the agriculturists get low prices for their produce,, you diminish their ability to purchase, or to give employment to others, and thus, by bringing about hard times in the farming and planting States, you force them to consume less and export more, though, owing to the blighting effects of the restrictive system, they get but little in re- turn. So, too, hard times thus brought about, equally curtaij the ability of all others to con- sume our staples, and the system which it was said would stimulate and sustain a good home market for our agricultural products, defeats it- self. In Great Britain they manufacture more goods by hundreds of millions, than will supply their home market. But they do not produce an ade- quate supply of grain for breadstuff's. The for- mer being in excess, not only supplies the home market, but leaves an immense surplus to be sent abroad. Therefore, British manufacturers, see- ing the importance of free ingress and egress amongst nations, are in favor of what is termed free trade, that they may dispose of their surplus goods most advantageously. But the farmers. 8 not being able to produce a sufficiency of bread- stuffs to supply the home market, see that it is most to their interest to tax the introduction of grain into Great Britain, because, by so doing, they are enabled to monopolize the home market, and force the consumers to pay extravagant prices for their flour. Owing to this state of facts, the farmers in Great Britain aie the ac- knowledged champions of high duties. In the United States the (acts are exactly reversed. Here we produce an excess of agricultural staples after furnishing the home market, and/ con- sequently, have a heavy surplus left to send abroad. Thus circumstances make our agricul- turists the champions for what is popularly called free-trade, so that they may take out and sell their crops in the foreign markets, and make their pur- chases and return home with the largest amount of nett profits. But our American manufactu- rers, not yet being able to produce enough to supply the home market, like the British farmers, are prompted by an unjust desire of gain, to ask Congress to pass laws taxing most heavily the foreign goods when imported, so as to give our manufacturers a monopoly of the home market by excluding foreign competition, and thus place our consumers of goods here, as the consumers of bread-stuffs are in Great Britain, at the mercy of the interested few, who by the force of unjust laws are enabled to control the home market and v compel the people to pay them exorbitant prices. From this view' of the situation of the two na- tions, it will be found that American manufactu- rers are identified in policy and interest with the British farmers, and therefore both are the ad- vocates in their respective countries for high du- ties, to protect their particular interests, and thereby guarantying to them the monopoly in their especial line of the home market — while, on the other hand, it will be as clearly seen that the agriculturists in the United States and the fo- reign manufacturers are identified in interest and policy, and therefore both are the advocates of the fewest restrictions upon commerce, because each wishes to make the most profitable ex- change of their surplus productions, and there- fore both desire free ingress and egress to the best markets. Let the agncultursts in America bear it constantly in mind, that the farming inte # - restin Great Britain imposes the most intolerable burdens upon our productions when exported to that country, and that the manufacturers in the United States, in return, impose the most griev- ous taxes upon European goods. This coalition to cut down the profits of American agriculture can be most successfully met by associating the joint efforts oi the farmers in America with those of the manufacturers of Europe. Nor, in seeking a redress from the oppressions under which they labor, will it be necessary to impose upon the other departments of industry. All they have to do is reciprocally to reduce existing rates of duties in both countries, and, by removing the hand of oppression, commerce and agriculture will as- sume their accustomed prosperity. The late Zoll Verein treaty, negotiated by ! our minister, Mr. Wheaton, with a portion of the German States, contains the valuable feature of a reciprocal reduction of duties. The Ger- mans propose to reduce the duties on our Ame- rican staples, if we will also reduce the duties upon their manufactures. Let the principle of this treaty be adopted by the American Senate, and England and France — nay, all nations with whom we trade, would propose a reciprocal re- duction of duties. This is the true and just po- licy, and will put our agriculturists fairly into the command of the . best markets. This great principle of a reciprocal reduction o duties, if adopted, as it most certainly should be, will open out all the great springs of commerce, which the restrictive tariff policy is designed to dam up, and thus, by liberalizin, trade, and stimulating a bold and vigorous cir- culation along all the great channels of com merce, give health, impulse, and activity to a’ the great departments ot industry — these neces sarily elevate, civilize, and enrich the people, making the country prosperous and happy, and all this can be attained by granting freedom to all, and inflicting oppression upon none. A Member of the 28th Cowgress.