A H> 2) IB m © 8 DELIVERED BEFORE THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING AGRICULTURE. AT ITS MEETING ON THE TWENTIETH OF JULY, 1824. BY MATHEW CAREY, ESQ. MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL AND ANTIQUA¬ RIAN SOCIETIES. " Whatever tends to diminish in any country the number of “artificers and manufacturers, tends to diminish the home “ market, the most important of all markets for the rude pro¬ duce of the land; and thereby still further to discourage “ agriculture” —Smith’s Wealth of Nations. “IfEurope will not take from us the products of our soil on “ terms consistent with our interest, the natiiral remedy is to w contract as fast as possible, our wants of her” —A. Hamilton. “ The uniform appearance of an abundance of specie, as “the concomitant of a flourishing state of manufactures, and “of the reverse, where they do not prevail, afford a strong pre- “ sumption of their favourable operation on the wealth of a “country.”— Idem. “ A constant and increasing necessity on the part of the United “States for the commodities of Europe, and only a partial and “ occasional demand for their own in return, could not but ex- “ pose them to a state of impoverishment, compared with the “ opulence to which their political and natural advantages “authorise them to aspire” —Idem. PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE SOCIETY. FOURTH EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED* PHILADELPHIA: PRINTED BY JOSEPH R. A. SKERRETT October, 1824. At a meeting of the u Philadelphia Society for promoting Agriculture,” held July 20th, 1824: The annual address was delivered by Ma¬ thew Carey, Esquire : On motion, Resolved , that the thanks of the Society be presented to Mathew Carey, Esq. for his address, and that he be requested to furnish a copy for publication. W. S. WARDER, Assistant Sec'ry, m CL0 PREFACE- ~ s To the Farmers and Planters of the United States . Fellow Citizens, The following pages, involving a subject of the utmost importance to your dearest interests, are : respectfully submitted to your most serious consi¬ deration. To insure the doctrines they contain a A calm and candid investigation, it will, I hope, be * ^sufficient to state that they are in accordance with \ the practice of all the prosperous nations of the ^ old world ; that the prosperity of those nations has ? been and is in proportion to the extent to which .these doctrines are carried into practice; and that 1 r ^they are adopted generally, in a greater or less de- v* gree, in the codes of nearly all the newly-formed *5 governments of the western hemisphere, which have had the sagacity either absolutely to prohibit, or to T/ impose prohibitory duties on, such articles as would interfere with or crush the national industry. Independent of the practice of those nations, these doctrines are in unison with the clear and ex¬ plicit maxims of the wisest statesmen the world has ever produced—the Edwards, Walsinghams, Colberts, Sullys, and Frederics, beyond the Atlan¬ ta tic—and on this side, the Franklins, Jeffersons, and Hamiltons, a powerful host. 1 The soundness of these doctrines receives fur¬ ther corroboration, from the melancholy experience of those countries where they have been disregard¬ ed—Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, and Ireland, 1 For a few of the maxims of these three great states¬ men, see the close of this address. O© .0 to \o\ IV 1 } reface. often quoted, but quoted in vain. Our own expe¬ rience, subsequently to our two wars, also sheds strong light on the subject. Russia, for two years, 1820 and 1821, tried the effect of the system we pursue, which in that short time blighted and blast¬ ed the national prosperity as much as a war of ten years duration could have done. A circular of the emperor Alexander, draws the following strong picture of the national suffering:— “ In proportion as the prohibitory system is extended and rendered perfect in other countries, that state which “pursues the contrary system , makes from day to day sacri - “fees more extensive and more considerable. * * * It offers “ a continual encouragement to the manufactures of other “ countries—and its own manufactures perish in the struggle 6 ‘ which they are as yet unable to maintain . “It is with the most lively feelings of regret we ac- “ knowledge it is our own proper experience which en- “ ables us to trace this picture. AGRICULTURE WITH¬ OUT A.MARKET, INDUSTRY WITHOUT PROTEC- “ f ION, LANGUISH AND DECLINE. SPECIE IS EX- “ PORTED, AND THE MOST SOLID COMMERCIAL “ HOUSES ARE SHAKEN. “ Events have proved that our AGRICULTURE and our “COMMERCE, as well as our MANUFACTURING IN- “ DUSTRY, are not only paralyzed, BUT BROUGHT TO “ THE BRINK OF RUIN.” In consequence of this calamitous state of affairs, a new tariff was adopted in Russia, in 1822, which contains about 340 prohibitions. Among the difficulties attendant on the discussion of subjects of deep interest, one of the most serious js, the errors in point of fact, into which partizans fall, whereby it is scarcely possible for the commu¬ nity at large to avoid erroneous deductions. Facts are the pivots on which sound judgments depend, on practical subjects; and where they are mistaken or misstated, theories erected on them, are as unsafe as edilicies erected oil sandy foundations. V Preface . No subject has ever been discussed in this coun¬ try, on which so many and such glaring errors in point of fact have been promulgated, as on the pro¬ tection of manufactures, in the late discussions in and out of congress. It were endless to enume¬ rate them. Some are commented on in the body of this address—I shall here briefly touch on four of the most striking, out of fifty, which might justly claim refutation. I. It was asserted that the bill would prohibit, the importation of goods, wares, and merchandise, to the amount of g 30,000,000 !!! (f What, in the aggregate, is the measure proposed ? To (< prohibit the importation of manufactures and other articles , “ to the amount of Jg 30,000,000 ! It is true, we are told, “ that a certain portion, but that small, will not be prohi- (( bited for some time to come.”— Mr. Cambreleng's Speech , Feb. 18, 1824. II. That it would impair the revenue to the amount of $7,000,000, or, (i nearly so !!” “ The effect of this Bill would be to prohibit , or nearly “ so, the importation of goods, the duties on which, from “ a statement laid on our table, amount to g 7,000,000.” ■— Mr. Rankin's Speech , p. 19. III. That the cotton, woollen, and hardware ma¬ nufactures receive no protection by duty in Great Britain. “ Mr. Rankin read a passage from page 168 of Mr. “ Lowe’s work, to show, that of the whole manufactured “ productions of England, consumed at home and abroad, “ estimated at L. 123,000,000, the cottons, woollens and “ hardware, which are the most considerable portion of “ them, and which received no protection from the govern - iK n\ent by duty!!! amounted to L. 80,000,000.”— Idem , p» 26. IV. That England, far from owing her prospe¬ rity to her system of protection, “ has grown rich in spite of her restrictions on trade “ England has gro'ivn rich in spite of her restrictions ts upon trade 7 and not by means of them. Her wisest states- A 2 VI Preface. “ men are desirous of removing them, and can trace with “ unerring certainty to their operation, a large part of the “ oppression under which the fundamental interest of that nation languishes, and is doomed to languish.”— Me¬ morial of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. All these assertions are utterly destitute of the smallest shadow of foundation. On the two first items I shall simply observe, that some of the lead¬ ing members of congress who used those arguments, not only abandoned them at the close of the de¬ bates, but even asserted, that far from reducing the revenue, the tariff bill would increase it 2 or 3,000,- 000 dollars !! I shall discuss the third and fourth points in con¬ nexion. It is obvious to the most superficial reader, that the fourth is a vital one, and ought to decide the question at issue. For if the restrictive system, which has been carried to a greater extent in Great Britain, than in any other country, has impeded her prosperity, it irresistibly follows that every prin¬ ciple of sound policy dictates that we should avoid its baleful consequences. If, on the contrary, it has been, as contended by the friends of the pro¬ tection of manufactures, the main source of her prosperity, then it is undoubtedly worthy of our adoption, so far as suits our situation and circum¬ stances. When it is considered that the object of the Bri¬ tish “ restrictive system” is to sedulously watch over, and guard the interests and industry of all the subjects of Great Britain—to secure the freights of the British trade at home and abroad to British merchants—to secure to British farmers, mechan¬ ics, and manufacturers, as far as practicable, the ex¬ clusive supply of the domestic market with the pro¬ ducts of their industry—to purchase articles in as rude, and to sell them in as elaborated a state a9 possible, so as to provide profitable employment for the working population—and by every means to force the products of the national industry on all other nations—it appears just as rational to assert that vessels make speedy voyages “ in spite” of favourable winds—that the Missouri and Missis¬ sippi have swelled to their present magnitude s6 in spite” of their tributary streams—that heat is pro¬ duced “ in spite” of fire—congelation “ in spite” of frost—or that the earth produces copious har¬ vests “in spite” of salutary alternations of refresh¬ ing rains and glowing sunshine, as that Great Bri¬ tain has grown rich “ in spite” of a system so ad¬ mirably and infallibly calculated to enrich a nation. I shall consider the restrictive system of Great Britain in its operation upon her navigation—and upon her woollen—leather—silk—and cotton ma¬ nufactures. When Cromwell assumed the reins of govern¬ ment in England, the navigation of that country was at a very low ebb, while that of the Dutch was at the highest pinnacle of greatness. At one period they built 1000 vessels per annum. 2 3 Above 100 vessels entered the port of Amsterdam in a day. The Dutch had as many ships as eleven kingdoms, including England. 3 They enjoyed the chief part of the carrying trade for most of the maritime powers of Europe; engrossed the freights between England and her colonies, and even the major part of the coasting trade of England; supplied her with the productions of a large portion of the globe, and in return carried away her produce and manu¬ factures to all other nations. While the Dutch were thus aggrandizing themselves, and increasing the national “ wealth, power and resources, 55 English 2 Macphcrson’s Annals of Commerce, vol, II. page 2ST, 3 Ibid. viii Preface . Vessels were rotting in port. Under these circum¬ stances, distracted as were the affairs of England, the rump parliament passed the navigation act, whereby the trade to the English colonies was in¬ terdicted to foreigners—and foreign vessels were prohibited from importing into England any articles not the production or manufacture of the nations to which they respectively belonged. This produc¬ ed an immense change in the affairs of both nations. It laid the foundation of the naval ascendency of England, and inflicted a mortal wound on that of the Dutch. 4 Here is “ restriction” in the fullest sense of the word—and here the principle was fairly tested. Is there to be found a man of character in Europe or America, who will venture to assert, that the navi¬ gation of Great Britain, the corner stone of her greatness and power, has prospered “ in spite of the u restrictions ” of this act, and so many others, ex¬ tending its provisions? I trust, not one. It is uni¬ versally admitted, that the restrictions of this act, laid the foundation of the naval supremacy of Eng¬ land. It now remains to see how extravagantly errone¬ ous Mr. Rankin’s statement is, so far as regards woollen and cotton goods. To what I have stated in the address, on the subject of the woollen trade of Great Britain, I shall barely add, that according to Pope’s British Customs, woollen cloths of all des¬ criptions, were subject in 1818 to a duty of \l. 145. 0 d. or j§ 7.33 per yard. The permanent duty had been ll. Is. 6d.—to which, during the war, were ad¬ ded one-third and one-fourth, both of which were in full force in 1818. So much for woollen goods re- 4 “ This law grievously affected the Dutch, who, till (e now, had been almost the sole carriers of merchandise “ from one country to another.” Idem, p. 443, Preface . ix ceiving “ no protection by duty.” 5 By the existing tariff, enacted in 1819, the duty is 50 per cent. The next article, the cotton manufacture, exhi¬ bits the most magnificent result of profound policy that the world has ever exhibited, which, if strong facts and fair deductions were allowed to have their due weight, would set this question at rest forever. Of cotton England does not produce a pound. Although we are gravely informed that the ‘‘cot¬ ton manufacture receives no protection by duty,” it is a fact, that printed calicoes from beyond the Cape of Good Hope have been prohibited altogether in Great Britain for more than a century. The pro- hibition remains in the existing Tariff, and is en¬ forced by a heavy penalty:— “ Calicoes, painted, stained, or dyed, in Persia, China, “ or East India, shall not be worn or used in this king- “ dom.” And further: 3,937,500 bush, wheat \ 5,000,000 corn to 787,500 barrels of 49 Philadelphia Agricultural Society . The average export of corn and flour for the last two years, was, 629,066 bushels of the former, and 792,288, barrels of the latter. Thus we see that the surplus of the labour of 25,000 men, (not 100,000, as stated by Mr. Barbour,) is nearly equal to the average export of our flour, and eight times as much as that of our Indian corn. A little reflec¬ tion will satisfy every reader that the conversion of 25,000, or even 15,000 of those farmers into ma¬ nufacturers, who have quitted manufactures for the culture of the soil, would, by diminishing the sur¬ plus for exportation, and increasing the domestic market, materially improve the condition of our farmers. And by a parity of reasoning, it is equally clear, that much of their sufferings must have been caused by the contrary process, which has been so long in operation. The distress to the south, among the cotton and tobacco planters, may be traced to this source. By the undue increase of the class of farmers, and the consequent depression of farming, many of the far¬ mers in various parts of the United States have been driven to tobacco planting—and, wherever the climate is favourable for the culture of cotton, far¬ mers have from year to year engaged in it. There is probably five times as much cotton raised in Vir¬ ginia and North Carolina as there was six or seven years ago—and our system cannot fail to extend the cultivation. From this state of things, I repeat, arises the excess of production over consumption, of both those staples, and the consequent glut of the foreign markets, and reduction of prices. E 50 Address delivered before the VI. Radical error of the opinion that a full and complete protection of manufactures would he in¬ jurious to the agriculturists , by ^ taxing the many for the benefit of the few” As the preceding views sufficiently establish the pernicious consequences to agriculture, of the de¬ pression of manufactures, the subject might be dis¬ missed as settled. But as lures have been held out to the agriculturists, of great advantages resulting from the purchase of cheap foreign goods, it is well worth while to investigate this point, in order to dispel the mass of error with which the subject is enveloped. There is scarcely an opinion more generally pre¬ valent, than this, that protecting or prohibitory du¬ ties on manufactures operate as a “ tax on the many, 5 * the agriculturists, “ for the benefit of the few,” the manufacturers. Hence a large portion of the far¬ mers, probably one-half, and nearly the whole of the cotton and tobacco planters, have been uni¬ formly opposed to them. That the advantage of purchasing cheap foreign goods, quality considered , is insignificant, and at all events only temporary, is capable of full demon¬ stration : but if it were permanent, it produces a great balance of evil. The question, put in its naked and correct form, stripped of the glare with which it is surrounded, is, whether a large portion of one class of our citizens shall be ruined, and their workmen deprived of employment, that an¬ other class may purchase certain articles a little cheaper than they otherwise would. To illustrate this position, I take the case of the woollen manufacturers at present. Many of them, as 1 have stated, have been ruined, and their esta¬ blishments closed, in consequence of the importa¬ tion of immense quantities of inferior goods, sacri- Philadelphia Agricultural Society . 51 ficed at auction below cost, whereby our citizens were deprived of a market, or obliged to make si¬ milar sacrifices. Suppose by the reduction of the prices, that each individual in the community who consumed the foreign cloth, had saved five or even ten dollars, would it not be almost Herodian cru¬ elty, to put the ruin of fellow citizens in one scale, and let this paltry advantage outweigh it in the other? But even supposing the low prices to continue permanently, the advantage is all ideal. Of this, a comparison between the situation of the farming in¬ terest throughout the United States in 1814, and in 1819-20, affords full proof. In the first year, manufactured articles were high—but the farmers were generally prosperous, as they had propor¬ tionate prices for their produce—and were then better able to purchase than in the latter period, when manufactures were in many cases reduced one-half, but when the farmers throughout the mid¬ dle states suffered the most intense distress, in con¬ sequence of the general impoverishment, arising from the enormous importations of the preceding years. Throughout the world, with scarcely an excep¬ tion, poverty and wretchedness are universal atten¬ dants on low prices. China, It&iy, Poland, Spain, and ill-fated Ireland, are cases in point. In Ireland, labour and every article produced by it, are at the lowest possible rates. Labourers are hired for four, five, and six pence per day, equal to 7, 9, and 11 cents. Potatoes are about 5d. per 14 lb. Other articles are in the same proportion. Yet cheap as are provisions, clothing, &c. the people are more wretched there than in any other part of Europe. The United States and Great Bui|ain are illustrations of a contrary character. Labour and 52 Address delivered before the its productions arehigh in both countries. But no man will deny the superiority of the mass of the popu¬ lation in point of comfort and happiness, over those of the other nations specified. I shall now endeavour to prove, that throughout a large portion of our existence as a nation, our system made a wanton sacrifice of the interests of the class for whose particular benefit it was devis¬ ed, and that it 44 taxed the many” domestic con¬ sumers, “for the benefit of the few” foreign manu¬ facturers. The government was organized in 1789, from which time till 1810, a period of twent}^-one years, the manufacture of cottons and woollens, and iron wares generally, was almost unknown in this coun¬ try. Of course we depended upon foreign supplies almost altogether. There was no competition to check exorbitant prices. It is therefore highly probable that all the cotton and woollen goods and iron ware consumed in that period, to the amount of from 15 to g 20,000,000 per annum, cost the American consumer from 15 to 25 per cent, more than they would have done, had those manufactures been established here, and a proper competition preserved between the foreign and domestic manu¬ facturer. The case of coarse cottons affords a powerful corroboration of this theory. The East India article was paltry and comparatively worthless. Yet it generally sold at about 25, 26, or 27 cents per yard, while there was no American competition. Prohi¬ bitory duties were enacted in 1816: and the prices, in consequence of competition, have fallen to 12, 13, and 14 cents, for an excellent article, twice as serviceable as the East India trash. Had the pro- tectioj$*been extended to the manufacture in 1789, the same result would have taken place at that Philadelphia Agricultural Society. 53 time, which would have produced an immense sav¬ ing to the farming interest. The annual importation was about §4,000,000. Of course the consumers paid about § 2,000,000 more than they otherwise would have done, had the manqf&cture been pro¬ perly protected. These (Observations apply to all other manufactures, not established ip the country, in which there is no rivalship. ( / / ( , I have another strong case to present to my audi¬ tors, to prove the advantage to the agriculturists, of the success, and consequently of the protection, of manufactures. In the year 1821, the manufacture of cotton bagging was prostrated in Kentucky. The imported article was sold at New Orleans throughout the year 1822, at from 40 to 50 cents per yard, or an average of 45 cents, although the price in Dundee was only 9d. a lOd. sterling. Towards the close of the year 1822, the manufacture was revived in Kentucky, and considerable supplies were forwarded to N. Orleans. The competition reduced the price to little more than half. In three prices current, now before me, of Dec. 27, 1823, and Jan. 31 and Feb. 7, 1824, the Scotch bagging is quoted at 22 a 26 cents, and Kentucky at 20 to 22, or an average for the for¬ mer of 24 cents, being a reduction of about 21 cents per yard. Let it be distinctly observed, as having an important bearing on the subject, that the price in Dundee had not undergone any material altera¬ tion within the time embraced in these statements, and.that, therefore, the reduction of the price of the foreign article is solely attributable to the compe¬ tition of the domestic one. The quantity of cotton bagging used in the United States is about 3,300,000 yards per annum, which, during the year 1822, at 45 cents per yard, cost about § 1,485,000. The cost in 1823, at 24 cents, was about §^792,000, making a difference in favour e 2 54 Address delivered before the of the cotton planters, in the latter year, of above 8 690,000, arising, beyond the possibility of doubt, from the revival of the manufacture in Ken¬ tucky. Yet, strange and impolitic as it really is, every cotton planter in congress was violently op¬ posed to the protection of manufactures generally, and in a most especial manner to that of cotton bagging!!! From a full consideration of the effect of compe¬ tition in the case of coarse cottons and cotton bag¬ ging, and in every case where any of our manufac¬ tures have been adequately protected, it may be pronounced as a general maxim, with scarcely an exception, that prohibitory duties, or even absolute prohibitions, provided their operation be prospec¬ tive, far from 6t taxing the many for the benefit of “ the few,” by raising prices, never fail to produce reductions of price and constant supplies. On this subject, I shall call in the aid of Alexander Hamil¬ ton— “ When a domestic manufacture has attained to per- (( fection, and has engaged in the prosecution of it, a com- petent number of persons, it invariably becomes cheaper, a * * * The internal competition which takes place, soon “ does away every thing like monopoly; and by degrees “ reduces the price of the article to the minimum of a reason - “ able profit on the capital employed. This accords with the “ reason of the thing, and with experience.” I shall conclude this head with one more case of the injury inflicted by our policy on agriculture. In consequence of the commotions in Spain, great numbers of full-blooded Merinos were imported in¬ to this country in 1810, 1811, and 1812, and pur¬ chased by our farmers at exorbitant prices. The breed was propagated to a great extent—and an adequate protection of the woollen manufacture would have rendered this speculation highly advantageous to the farmers. But, to avoid “taxing the many for the 55 Philadelphia Agricultural Society. “ benefit of the few,” the woollen manufacture was allowed to be prostrated in 1817, 1818, and 1819, and thus not only the large capital, probably g 1,- 500,000 invested in Merinos, and half and quarter breeds, was nearly all sacrificed; but the fanners were deprived of a steady, increasing market for wool, which would have enabled them to employ to advantage a portion of their lands, rendered use¬ less by the prohibition of our breadstuff's in nearly all parts of Europe, and produced them an annual in¬ come of probably from 2 to g 3,000,000. VII. My seventh position is, that the protection of ma¬ nufactures would be beneficial not only to our mer¬ chants, but to the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain. On this point I shall be very brief, and barely sketch the outlines of the arguments, leaving the details to be filled up by my auditors. That our commerce is, and has been from the or¬ ganization of the government, overdone, that is to say, that there have been at all times too many merchants for the commerce of the country, is a truth of which no man of observation or candour can for a moment doubt. This has arisen obviously from the non-establishment of a variety of manu¬ factures, those, for instance, of cottons, woollens, iron ware, glass, china, &c. &c. in which, for want of adequate protection, our citizens were for a se¬ ries of years unable to compete with foreign rivals; and many of which, even at present, are in a sickly and drooping state, and some of the most important almost wholly unessayed in this country. Hundreds of young men, in every stage of our career, who would have been devoted to those branches, had they been extensively carried on, have been placed 56 Address delivered before the in counting-houses, and become merchants, without the necessary friends, capital, or talents for the profession. Hence there are probably as many ship¬ ping merchants in the United ^States as in Great Britain: scarcely a port in the country that has not a number of them—and hencefcompetition has al¬ most always raised our staples: fcoo high in our mar¬ kets—reduced them too low abroad by glutting the foreign markets—raised the prices of the return car¬ goes in the West Indies and elsewhere—and re¬ duced the prices of those cargoes on their arrival in the United States. To these combined causes may be fairly ascribed the misfortunes and ship¬ wreck of so large a portion of the merchants of this country, particularly during the wars of the French revolution, when, to speak within bounds, three-fourths of them became bankrupts, notwith¬ standing we enjoyed a commerce without prece¬ dent in the annals of neutral nations. Adequate protection of manufactures at present, would not only prevent a continuance of this inordinate in¬ crease, but induce some of our merchants to devote themselves to those branches, and thus reduce the number within bounds more commensurate with our commerce—of course furnish employment to some of the capital which the limitation of that commerce stagnates—and, in addition, afford an opening for the younger branches of the families of our mer¬ chants, whose parents at present find it extremely difficult to devise occupations ‘ for them by which they may be enabled at a future day to support themselves. When I assert that the protection of manufac¬ tures would be beneficial to the manufacturers and merchants of Great Britain, it is not with a view of sporting a paradox. It is a position founded on the most mature consideration I can give the subject. Philadelphia Agricultural Society . 57 I trust I have proved that this country, generally speaking, is in an impoverished state—and that its impoverishment arises from the impolicy of allow¬ ing our manufactures to be depressed, and the ma¬ nufacturers to be driven to the culture of the soil, whereby the production of our great staples is in¬ creased beyond the demand at home and abroad, so as to depress the prices below a fair remunera¬ tion for the time, talent, and capital employed. An impoverished nation must curtail its expenses, and of course its importations, within narrow limits. Luxuries are in a great measure renounced, except by the few who escape the general pressure. Many conveniences are in like manner given up; and, with the prudent, expenses are in a great measure confined to necessaries. The payments of such a nation moreover must always be irregular and un¬ certain. Large losses will inevitably accrue by bankruptcy. On the contrary a prosperous nation purchases freely, not merely of necessaries and conveniences, but, on a large scale, of luxuries, on which the pro¬ fits of an exporting nation are greater than on mere necessaries. If our cotton, woollen, and iron ma¬ nufactures were adequately protected, so that we should import less of them, and keep our popula¬ tion profitably employed, circulation would be brisk, our citizens would be prosperous, and our impor¬ tations of plate, plated ware, laces, merino shawls, girandoles, china, Brussels carpets, &c. &c. would be doubled or trebled—and thus our total importa¬ tions be greatly increased. Let any man for a moment reflect on the differ¬ ence between the present scale of expense of the citizens of the southern states, when, I repeat, ac¬ cording to Mr. Carter, “large and ample estates , once the seats of opulence , which supported their 58 Address delivered before the proprietors in affluence and comfort , are now thrown out to waste and decayf 9 —and the scale formerly, when they sold their upland cotton at 20 a 25 cents per lb. and tobacco at $150 her hhd. and he will fully appreciate the soundness of these opinions. The proof of this theory is at hand—and is con¬ clusive, by a comparison of our consumption of fo¬ reign goods at two several periods. The imports of the United States in six years, from 1796 to 1801 inclusive, wire $507,052,697 Re-exportations - - - 217,596,598 Six years consumption, - 23 $ 289,456,099 Average - - - $48,242,683 Our population during that period averaged about 4,750,000. Of course our consumption or foreign goods, wares, and merchandise, averaged vabout ten dollars per head. Mark the contrast. Our imports for 1821, 1822, and 1823, were - $223,406,532 Re-exportations ... 71,132,312 Three years consumption, 24 $ 152,274,220 Average - - - - $50,758,073 Our population during the last period, probably averaged about 10,200,000. Our consumption of foreign articles, therefore, has been below five dol¬ lars per head, but little more than half what it was in the former period. 25 Some reduction, it must be 23 Seyhert, page 266. 24 Treasury returns. 25 This argument would receive great additional force if we could ascertain the amount of teas, coffee, spices, sugars, wines, &c. imported at both periods. The con- 59 Philadelphia Agricultural Society. allowed, has taken place of late in the prices of our imports, from what they commanded during the chief part of the wars of the French revolution, when they rose extravagantly, in consequence of the excessive issues of pa per money in Great Britain. But the great rise was subsequent to the first period from 1796 to 1801, in which years it was inconsiderable. At all events, it bears no proportion to the very great re¬ duction of the amount of our imports per capita. There is, however, another point of view in which to consider our relations with Great Britain; that is, as regards her government. On this I wish to of¬ fer a single observation, to w T hich I request par¬ ticular attention for the sake of both countries. If such a mighty power could regard this country with sentiments of jealousy, as likely at a future day to dispute with her the trident of Neptune, as some of our enthusiastic citizens fondly believe, then the policy we pursue is highly promotive of her views, and ought to be advocated bj T all her friends with zeal; as it wastes our resources, and impo¬ verishes our citizens—and will in the same degree, at all future times, enfeeble us. But “ self-poised” as she is, with resources such as no nation ever be¬ fore possessed, and those resources likely, from the profound wisdom of her policy, to continue perma¬ nently, such feelings and views are not supposable. I wow proceed to reply to some of the most plau¬ sible and popular objections to the legislative pro¬ tection of manufactures. First objection — Demoralization . Among the objections to the protection of manu¬ factures, their tendency to demoralization has held sumption of these must increase with the great increase of population, however great the general depression. 60 Address delivered before the a conspicuous place, and, for want of reflexion, has had a pernicious influence even on men of minds beyond the common level. And hence, thousands of young people, who, under a correct policy, might and would be profitably employed for themselves and the community, in manufacturing establish¬ ments, are brought up in idleness, and exposed to the seductions of vice and crime, which always fol¬ low in the train of idleness. Of the persons em¬ ployed in the cotton manufactories throughout the United States, amounting probably to 150,000, whose numbers might be greatly increased, two- thirds at least are young females, of whom half would be absolutely or nearly idle, but for this branch of business. While thus employed, they contract habits of order, regularity, and industry, which lay a broad and deep foundation of public and private future usefulness. They become, as they arrive at a marriageable age, eligible partners for life for young men, to whom they will be able to afford substantial aid in the support of families, a consideration which cannot fail to have due weight with those possessed of common prudence. Thus the inducements to early marriages, and the pros¬ pects of comfort and independence in that state, are greatly increased—the licentiousness to which a life of celibacy is exposed, proportionably restrain¬ ed—and immensely important effects produced on the welfare of society. Hence it is obvious, that this objection is wholly unfounded—and that the encouragement of manufactures, by stimulating and rewarding industry, has, on the contrary, a constant tendency to promote sound morals. It is the misfortune of this country, that most of our maxims on this and some other vital subjects, are derived from views of society and manners in Europe, wholly inapplicable to our situation. Many of those views are partial and confined, even as they 61 Philadelphia Agricultural Society . regard Europe, and are calculated to foster precon~ ceived prejudices; for a broad and liberal investi¬ gation of the effect of manufactures in England, France, or Germany, would prove, beyond contro¬ versy, that their tendency is salutary even there, as they necessarily promote industry, which is one of the greatest preservatives from vice and crime throughout the world. Fortunately I have means in my power to esta¬ blish this point as respects Great Britain, the great¬ est manufacturing nation in the world, by a com¬ parison of six counties, three where manufactures and three where agriculture principally prevail. Popula¬ tion. Families engaged in Ma¬ nufac¬ tures, trade, &c. Families engaged in agri¬ culture. Paupers. | Criminals. Poor rates Lancaster 1,052,859 152,271 22,723 46,200 371 £.249,585 Yorkshire 1,175,251 137,048 63,830 77,661 245 453,461 Stafford 341,824 42,435 18,285 22,510 91 133,701 2,569,934 331,754 104,838 146,371 707 836,747 Norfolk 343,368 26,201 36,368 42,707 163 £.256,014 Suffolk 270,54 ' 17,418 30,745 36,110 109 340,384 Essex 289,424 17,160 33,206 38,337 144 254,837 903,334 60,779 100,319 117,154 416 £.751,235 SYNOPSIS. Manufac¬ tures. Agricul¬ ture. | Paupers. Criminals. Poor rates. vU- Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per head. Lancaster, York St Stafford 76 24 5.68 .027 6s. fid. Norfolk, Suffolk St Essex 37 63 12.9 .046 16s. 10 d. F 62 Address delivered before the Thus it appears that in the agricultural counties the proportion of paupers is above 100, of criminals 60, and of poor rates 150 per cent, more than in those where manufactures prevail. These tables demand the most serious considera¬ tion, not merely from our statesmen, but from our citizens at large. They operate a complete refuta¬ tion of the prevailing error, on the subject of the de¬ moralizing tendency of manufactures, and prove that this objection, like all the others so confident¬ ly relied on, when brought to the test of fact, proves utterly fallacious. The population is taken from Lowe’s “ Present state of England”—the number of families engaged in manufactures and in agriculture, as well as the poor rates, from the Monthly Magazine for March, 1824, where they are derived from the late census —the enumeration of the paupers and criminals from Colquhoun’s Treatise on Indigence. It is not necessary to corroborate the deductions arising from these facts, by any authority whatever. They carry conviction with them; but, to remove all doubts from the minds of those who may be disposed to in¬ credulity, I quote the opinion of Colquhoun, whose opportunities were second to those of no man in Europe, and who explicitly pronounces a condemna¬ tion of the prevailing dogma: “ Contrary to the generally received opinion, the num- “ bers of paupers [he might, as his own tables evince, have “added—and of criminals,] in those counties which are “ chiefly agricultural, greatly exceed those where manu¬ factures prevail. 5,26 The citizens of the southern states, who are so very solicitous to preserve our morals from degene¬ rating, by the protection of manufactures, may therefore calm their apprehensions, and spare them- Colquhoun on Indigence, p. 272. Philadelphia Agricultural Society . 63 selves any uneasiness on the subject. They are disposed to be wroth when any of our citizens in¬ terfere with that portion of their population des¬ tined to labour on their plantations, whom they deem themselves fully competent to manage: and they may trust the citizens of the other states with the management, and care of the morals, of their free work people. Above all things, if they conde^ scend to watch over the morals of our people, they are respectfully requested to devise some other mode of preserving them than the one they have hitherto pursued, of devoting so many of them to idleness and pauperism. Second objection—We are not ripe for manufac¬ tures . Many of the opposers of the legislative protec¬ tion of manufactures, make large professions of friendship for them, but hold out the very fallacious idea, contradicted by almost universal experience, that when a country is 46 ripe” for them, they will arise spontaneously without protection—but that when a country is not thus “ ripe ,” it is improper to force them by what is termed hot*bed culture, that is, by protecting or prohibitory duties. The elements of this “ripeness,” on which so much emphasis is laid, are, the raw material in abundance—sufficient capital—and cheapness of labour. I hope to make it appear as clear as the noon-day sun, that a nation may possess all these, and yet be disabled by overwhelming foreign com¬ petition from availing herself of them. I will in the first instance take the case of the cotton manu¬ facture in the United States. So far as regarded the raw material, no country was ever more ripe for any manufacture than the U. States were for this one from 1795 to 1805, during 64 Address delivered before the which time capital was superabundant here for every object of profitable speculation. And the machinery employed in cotton spinning and weav¬ ing, is managed chiefly by young females, who formerly wove twenty or twenty-five yards per diem—and each of whom can at present attend two power looms, which together produce fifty yards per day. The labour, of course, counts for little, being formerly less than two cents per yard, and now less than one. We possessed, moreover, mechanical talent for making machinery, not ex¬ celled in the world—and a boundless extent of wa¬ ter power. Here then is a case completely ful¬ filling all the conditions of “ripeness;” —com¬ pletely testing this theory; and either fully esta¬ blishing it, or proving it radically unsound, and fraught with pernicious consequences to any nation which acts on it. Unfortunately for our political economists, in this instance, as in almost every other, fact puts down their theory. * Mr. Gallatin, whose attention was called to ma¬ nufactures by an order of the house of Representa¬ tives, and who took great pains to investigate their situation, informs us in his report on the subject, that in Rhode Island, where the cotton manufac¬ ture was first established, and which has now be¬ come the chief seat of it, there was one cotton mill erected in 1791—in four years more, another !— and in 1803 and 1804, two more in Massachusetts! During the three succeeding years, there were ten more erected in Rhode Island, and one in Connec¬ ticut ! making in all fifteen, erected in those states before 1807, which employed 8000 spindles, and produced about 300,000 lbs. of yarn per annum! In the other states, particularly at Patterson in New Jersey, and in the city of Philadelphia', seve¬ ral attempts were made to establish the manufac- Philadelphia Agricultural Society . 65 ture, which almost universally failed, to the ruin of the undertakers. And, but for the restrictive sys¬ tem, the war, and the prohibitory square yard duty, this manufacture, so peculiarly calculated for this country, and for which we were so “ripe” would to this day have remained in a groveling state. Let it be observed that the average export of cotton from the United States from 1795 to 1799 inclusive, was lbs . 7,012,745 From 1800 to 1806, also inclusive, 35,432,219 But according to a report of the com¬ mittee of commerce and manufactures in 1816, the consumption in 1800 was only lbs, 150,000! And in 1805 was only 500,000 ! Whereas, under the operation of the restrictive system, the consumption in 1810, rose to lbs. 3,000,000 and in 1815, by the war, to 27,000,000 So much, fellow citizens, for the spontaneous growth and maturity of manufactures, “ when a na¬ tion is ripe for them.” This, then, appears one of those pretty phrases, which mankind, through' in¬ dolence and w'ant of disposition to take the pains to investigate, receive on trust as oracular, but which are mere political ignes fatui, insuring the decay of those nations which adopt them. Further. We are now “ripe” for the manufac¬ ture of fine muslins, so far as the raw material, machinery, capital, skill, and cheapness of labour are concerned. But we cannot compete with the superior capitals of the British manufacturers, for want of adequate protection. As this is a favourite dogma with the supporters of the present withering policy of the country, and as thousands of our citizens labour under the delu¬ sion of receiving it with implicit faith, I think it f 2 66 Address delivered before the time well employed, to corroborate the refutation of it arising from our own experience by strong ex¬ amples derived from that of Europe. England previously to the reign of the third and fourth Edward, was “ripe” for the woollen manu¬ facture, so far as cheapness of labour and super¬ abundance of the raw material were concerned— and there was no deficiency of capital for the esta¬ blishment. According to the theory of our politi¬ cal economists, that branch should have arisen there spontaneously, centuries before the reigns of those inonarchs. But their predecessors, persuaded, it is to be presumed, that the day of “ ripeness ” had not arrived, took no pains to fosterthis industry; and hence England shipped immense quantities of her wool to Flanders, as we do of our cotton to Europe —received it back in a manufactured state at an advance of two, three, four, and five fold—'employ¬ ed the poor, and supported the government, of the Belgic provinces—-kept thousands of her own peo¬ ple partly unemployed, or wholly so, as paupers— and withered and blasted the national prosperity. The Edwards, wiser than their predecessors, saw that the ripeness depended on protection—and wisely afforded that protection. The manufacture in conse¬ quence prospered. Those monarchs clothed their people with their own cloth—saved large sums to the country—induced numbers of valuable manu¬ facturers to immigrate into England, with their ta¬ lents, their capitals, and their industry,—and thus enhanced the national wealth, power, and resources, at the expense of a rival nation. Ireland affords another illustration of this theory. Her pasturage is second to none in the world. She raises large flocks of sheep, and could raise treble the number. Labour is cheap. People, we are recently told, can be hired there at 4d. and 6d. per diem. Ca- 67 Philadelphia Agricultural Society . pilai is not deficient; but if it were, it might be had to any extent in Great Britain. She is therefore admirably calculated for the woollen manufacture, and ought to be able, not merely to clothe her own population, but now, as she enjoys a free trade, to export immense quantities of woollen goods to this and other countries, where the market is open to her. But by a statement now before me, it ap¬ pears that though she exported in the year 1822, wool to a very considerable amount, she exported no woollen goods whatever, and the chief part of her consumption of fine and superfine cloths is derived from Great Britain. Her manufacture is confined almost altogether to coarse goods. Third objection—Capital not so profitably employed in manufactures as in agriculture . We are assured by the opposers of the legislative protection of manufactures, that capital employed in them is not productive of so much national ad¬ vantage as what is invested in agriculture. This is a vital error, as will appear from the following com¬ parison between the culture and the manufacture of cotton. This culture and manufacture are fair sub¬ jects of comparison, as they are among the most profitable of their respective genera of industry, and their results are more readily reducible to rule. A company of negroes, seventy-five, young and old, will furnish 45, but say 50 working hands, who, under every advantage of sea¬ son and soil, may average per annum, about 1000 lbs. of cotton each, equal on the whole to 50,000 lbs. This, at 15 cents per pound amounts to - - - g 7,500 Fifty females, attending each two power looms, and manufacturing 50 yards per day, 68 Address delivered before the produce in the year 750,000 yards, which, at 11 cents per yard, amount to - $ 82,500 At four yards and a half to the pound, these weavers consume about 166,600 lbs. of yarn, produced out of 190,000 lbs. of raw cotton, which, at 15 cents, amount to - 28,500 Net national gain - 54,000 166,600 lbs of yarn, at 28 cents per lb. amount to - - - 46,480 Fifty persons engaged in weaving, require 100 persons, male and female, young and old, to per¬ form the various operations of blowing, carding, drawing, roving, stretching, spinning, spooling, warping, dressing, and jobbing. Thus it appears that 150 persons, most of whom, but for the cotton manufacture, would be either par¬ tially employed, or wholly idle, save to the nation 8 54,000 per annum, or $560 each—whereas 50 working negroes, encumbered with 25 non-labour¬ ers, bring into the country only $7,500, or $ 150 per head—or, if we take into view, as is perfectly right, the whole 75, it is only $100. At the above rate, 21 females in Manchester, pay for the proceeds of the labour of 50 able-bodied negroes, encumbered with 25 incapable of work from superannuation or infancy. The wages of the 150 persons, say 50 at 250 cents per week, and 100 at 175 cents, amount to $ 15,600 of which probably one-half goes to enrich the neighbouring farmers. Such an establishment, moreover, affords employment to probably an equal number of persons engaged in various handicraft occu¬ pations—but say only 50, who, with the 150 69 Philadelphia Agricultural Society . employed in the manufactory, make up 200 customers to the neighbouring farmers for provisions, drink, and fuel, at say 45 dol¬ lars per head, which amounts to per annum § 9,000 Those handicraft people afford a market to the farmers for timber, hides, skins, &c. &c. which can scarcely amount to less than, per annum - § 10,000 The importance of this point, will warrant de¬ voting a few lines more to it. Alexander Hamil¬ ton’s views on it, as indeed on every subject con¬ nected with political economy, were singularly cor¬ rect. He says— “ Manufacturing 1 establishments afford occasional and ex- “ tra employment to industrious individuals andfamilies , who “ are willing to devote the leisure resulting from the in- “ termissions of their ordinary pursuits, to collateral la- “ hours, as a resource for multiplying their acquisitions or “ their enjoyments. The husbandman himself experiences 6i a new source of profit and support from the increasedIndus- (t try of his wife and daughters, invited and stimulated by “ the demands of the neighbouring manufactories.” I trust that these statements, which challenge a rigorous investigation, fully prove that the idea of the inferiority of manufacturing labour, especially when aided by machinery, is the reverse of truth— as are the opinions of those who regard the com¬ plete protection of manufactures not merely as in¬ different but pernicious to the agriculturists. It is scarcely possible to conceive of an error more de¬ structive to their interests or to national prosperity. This is the theory. Now to the fact in confirma¬ tion . Mr. Gallatin, in his report on manufactures, da¬ ted April 17, 1810, informs us that a cotton manu¬ factory in Providence, R. I. gave employment to 178 persons, of whom 24 males, and 29 females, were within the establishment—and 50 males and 75 70 Jddress delivered before the females at their respective homes. It is highly pro¬ bable, that the whole of the latter, and half at least of the former, belonged to the families of the neigh¬ bouring farmers. It is well w orth while to ponder on the effects of our present system in a national point of view, the grand view in which it will be regarded by real statesmen. The United States ship to Europe 60,000 lbs of cotton, which, at 15 cents per lb. amount to.g 9,000 They receive in return 72,000 yards of cot¬ ton goods at, suppose, an average of 12| cents per yard.9,000 These 72,000 yards are produced out of 18,000 lbs. of cotton wool. Thus, in the exchange between the United States and Europe, the latter makes a clear gain of 42,000 lbs. out of 60,000. It will be observed that I have taken the coarse cottons into consideration. Had I predicated the calculation on fine goods at 15, 20, 25, or 30 cents per yard, as I might have done, it would have ad¬ ded greatly to the force of the argument. Some politicians have asserted, and even in print, that it is of no consequence to the cotton planter, whether he sells his cotton to his fellow citizens in Rhode Island, or to the subjects of the powers of Europe. He, to whom it is indifferent whether he enriches his fellow citizens, embarked in the same vessel of state with him, who braved the dangers of w^ar in defence of their common country, and on whom, in case of future wars, he must rely, ora foreigner w 7 ho has been and may be again an enemy —he who is regardless whether he adds to the wealth, power, and resources of his own country, or to those of a foreign nation—has yet to study the duties of a good citizen, and ought to have no Philadelphia Agricultural Society . 71 influence in the national councils. But even on the most selfish principles, this view is wholly untena¬ ble and fallacious; for it is surely far better to have three markets than two. Fourth objection—Abstraction of capital from agri¬ culture and commerce . It is asserted that it is unsound policy to abstract capital from commerce and agriculture, and em¬ ploy it in manufactures. 27 This objection has been reiterated times without number, and has passed current with too many of our citizens, who are disposed to believe that all the capital of the country is fully and profitably employed. Nothing can be more unfounded. The want of employment for capital is manifest from the prices of our stocks. This day the three per cents, are at 88, which is only 3.40 per cent. There is not a person who frequents any exchange in the United States, or who is in the smallest degree conversant with our commerce, who, if candid, will not acknowledge that there is not half employment for the mercantile capital of the country, notwith¬ standing the lamentable diminution it has under¬ gone since the war. And so far as regards agricul¬ ture, the case is equally striking. Our population engaged in that pursuit, was at the last census 8,022,319—and is now about 8,500,000, of whom 27 Among the evils with which the nation has been threat¬ ened, in the event of any modification of the tariff, that of “forcing capital ” from agriculture and commerce to manufactures, was strenuously insisted on. The Charles¬ ton memorial cents per lb. equal to 100 > Salt 20 cts. per bushel, ^ equal to . - 180 < Molasses, 5 cents per l gallon, equal to - 42 ] I t 120 \ 150 < 100 dollars worth of salt paid - $ 180 i 120 dollars worth of i souchong tea - 180 ^ 150 dollars worth of bo- < hea tea - - 180 ; 180 dollars worth of £ coarse brown sugar 180 | 550 dollars paid duties $ 720 \ per cent Laces, lace veils, pearls, and diamonds, jewel¬ ry, and all articles wholly or chiefly of gold or silver, paid Watches, clocks, time¬ pieces, tartan plaids, bombazets, damask table cloths, silks, sat- tins, Canton crapes, chambray gauzes, &c. Plated ware, china, cut¬ lery, girandoles, lus- $ tres, &c. $ Superfine broad cloths, * kerseymeres, chint- * zes, calicoes, Cash- J mere and merino * shawls, Brussels and \ other carpets Operation of these duties. It 15 20 25 1200 dollars worth of silks, sattins, and Canton crapes, paid $ 180 1200 dollars worth of china, girandoles, lustres, and plat¬ ed ware - 240 1200 dollars worth of superfine cloth, merino and Cash- mere shawls, chintzes, &c. 300 i i. % 3600 dollars pd. duties 1720 Thus 550 dollars worth of tea, sugar, and salt, paid as 80 Address delivered before the mote the national interest. And it is surely a gross insult to our government, to suppose that it could be deterred by Such threats, if they were fulminated. It would be ludicrous, were not the subject too se¬ rious for ridicule, to consider the delusion that prevails on this subject, and the means used to ex¬ cite alarm on this subject. 29 much duty as 3600 dollars worth of silks, sattins, Canton crapes, plated ware, china, girandoles, broad cloths, Cash- mere and Merino shawls, &c. &c. To the reader’s good sense I put the question, whether such an odious tariff, by which the poor were oppressed, and the rich highly favour¬ ed, does not savour more of Venetian aristocracy, than of a representative government,in which the elective franchise is more generally extended among the poorer classes of society than in any other country in the world ? Yet this is the tariff, every alteration of which has been resisted with as much zeal and ardour, as if the independence of the country were at stake. Some trifling alterations were made, during the last session, in the tariff of 1816, which increased the duties on plated ware, laces, European silks and sattins, and some other articles of luxury, 5 per cent. But even now 100 dollars worth of salt, or 180 dollars worth of the coarsest brown sugar, pays as much duty as 900 dollars worth of European silks, or as 600 dollars worth of super¬ fine broad cloth, Merino or Cashmere shawls, chintzes, Brussels carpets, &c. 29 The following paragraph, which is going the rounds of all the anti-tariff papers^n the union, is predicated on the idea that the pacha of Egypt has undertaken to avenge the cause of the British manufacturers, for the presump¬ tion of congress in daring to alter the trriff—and that he must have known in 1822, that such an alteration would take place :— ‘‘Letters from Egypt mention, that the Pacha will raise “ 50,000 bales of cotton this year. A London paper re- “ marks, all this must come to that country in British bot¬ toms, and consequently wili not only be so much sub- Address delivered before the “change of commodities, upon principles of perfect recipro - “ city!” The idea here held out, has been re-echoed in newspapers and pamphlets, and speeches in Con¬ gress, and by orators out of Congress, one hundred times. We are assured, and by citizens of the highest respectability, that Great Britain is repeal¬ ing her restrictive system as fast and as far as prac¬ ticable—and that if we enact such a system, we shall disgracefully adopt the discarded and repro¬ bated policy of Europe. Now, however extraordinary it may appear, it is indubitably true, that these assertions are entirely destitute of foundation. No such measures have been adopted. I do not accuse the gentlemen in question of wilful errors, I feel confident they believe what they state. But their belief does not at all affect the question. They are called upon to disprove, by substantial facts, the follow¬ ing averment—that so far as regards the internal cmisumption of foreign produce , (raw materials excepted,) or foreign manufactures , no relaxation whatever worth 7iotice has taken jdace in Great Britain within the last ten years . If they do not thus disprove it, it must be regarded as a proof that it is destitute of foundation. I need not add that this is all that concerns the question of the tariff. The relaxation of her colonial system, and of her navigation laws, belongs to a totally different subject. In a preceding part of this address, I have stated the high duties on the chief articles received from this country in Great Britain. I now annex a list of the duties that are actually in force on other articles-—duties enacted so late as 1819. Philadelphia Agricultural Society. ST Per cent. £ Per cent. Glass bottles and glass 5 Skins or furs in any manufactures, gene- > way dressed - 75 rally - - - 80 % Linen, not chequered Chinaware - - 75 | or striped 63 Cotton manufactures 75 J Linen sails - - 104! Earthenware - - 75 S LiSten, chequered, stri- Hides - - - 75 | ped, or printed 172! Leather, or manufac- j Pasteboards, per hun- tures whereof lea- i dred weight 31 ^3.8.6! ~ tlier is the princi- \ pal part - - 75 ^ Fifty or sixty enumerated, and all non-enumerated, arti¬ cles, fifty per cent. J ! ! How can gentlemen, with these facts before them—facts of public notoriety—how can they, l say, descant on the “free interchange of commo- “ dities upon the principles of perfect reciprocity” and on the discarding of the restrictions of Great Britain ? Where are we to look for the “ recipro¬ city ” here? But these examples were unnecessary for the disproof of the assertions thus confidently made? The case of the exclusion of our breadstuffs, on which I have already fully dilated, would be suffi¬ cient to set this question at rest for ever. Great Britain never imported in any one year as much flour as would supply her population for three weeks. Consequently the whole amount she could receive from us, were her ports unlimitedly open to our breadstuffs, would be unimportant, and could not materially affect her agriculturists. And if she were disposed to admit-“a free exchange of commodities upon principles of perfect reciprocity this would be a favourable opportunity of making a commencement. 31 Pasteboard, thus subject to a duty of above $15 per cwt. is sold in this city for $4.50 per cwt. 88 Address delivered before the She is, I admit, about to change her system wifch- respect to the silk manufacture. But the change does not bear out our citizens in the statements which I have quoted. By absolute prohibitions of silk goods of all descriptions, she has brought the manufacture to such complete perfection, as to be enabled to compete with the French and Italians in their own markets. She therefore no longer requires prohibitions, which are to be repealed, but not until the year 1826—so cautious is she to guard the industry of her citizens from foreign competition. And even when the prohibition is abrogated, the duties are to be nearly prohibitory- plain silk goods are to pay g £.88—and figured g 4.44 per lb. All other silk goods and silk shoes are to pay 30 per cent, ad valorem. Such is the extent to which she “ cuts the cords which tie com¬ merce to the earth,” so far as regards this species of goods, the only kind that has been as yet brought into consideration. And to afford adequate com¬ pensation to the manufacturers of silk goods, she has reduced the duties as follows. Raw silk from the East Indies in future, instead of 4s. per lb. is to pay only 2d; from China and Italy, instead of 5s. 6d. to pay 6d.; and from the Brazils, instead of 14s. to pay 7s. 6d. Friends and Fellow Citizens , The subject I undertook to discuss is almost in¬ exhaustible, and is but slightly broached in this ad¬ dress. But it is, I feel, time to draw to a close. I had written much more; but fearing to trespass on your patience, I omit the residue, and here con¬ clude, hoping that I have proved, that the policy pursued by this government has the most withering influence on the prosperity of the country—that there is an identity of interests between the two Philadelphia Agricultural Society . 89 great branches of human industry, the creation of the rude produce of the soil, and the moulding and fashioning that produce for the comfort and conve¬ nience of mankind—that it is impossible to depress the latter, without inflicting severe injury on the former—and that none but an enemy of both, will ever attempt to separate their interests, or to ex¬ cite jealousy or hostility between the great classes devoted to those all-important objects. (End of the address as delivered,) ( 90 ) The extreme length of the address , as originally written , induced the speaker to omit the latter part of it , which , in order to render it complete , and to lay the whole subject before the reader , is here an - nexed in the shape of an APPENDIX. In every stage of this investigation, we find a striking contrast between our policy and that of all the celebrated statesmen of Europe of past and pre¬ sent times, the Edwards, the Walsinghams, the Suliys, the Colberts, the Frederics, and those who now rule the destinies of Great Britain, France, and Russia, and are laying the foundations of their prosperity on the most solid basis. Either the whole mass of them, were and are utterly destitute of wis¬ dom and sound policy, or our system is radically and incurably unsound. There is no other alterna¬ tive. Those statesmen fostered and protected, and these still continue to foster and protect nascent manufactures, by bounties, premiums, loans, immu¬ nities, and prohibitions of, or prohibitory duties on, rival articles. How different the conduct of our government, and how inexpressibly mortifying to an American, and indelibly discreditable to our rulers ! Many of our manufactures have arisen to maturity, by the native energy of our citizens, unaided by bounties, premiums, loans, or, except in the case of coarse cottons, and two or three other articles, by prohibitory duties. But alas ! from time to time, our government, a republic, emanating from, res¬ ponsible to, and paid by, the people, beholds them prostrated, their proprietors bankrupted, and the 91 Appendix. national wealth impaired, without the least inter¬ ference in their defence !! Every effort to save them from ruin, is combated with as much zeal and ar¬ dour, as if it were an attempt to rob the rest of the community. I shall produce but one or two out of a score of instances. In the depressed and ruinous state of the woollen manufacture, as already stated, every motive of justice, humanity, and sound na¬ tional policy, called upon congress to afford this important branch decisive and powerful protection. But what has been done for it at the last session ? It is wholly unimportant, and will have scarcely any effect. After a long struggle, an addition of five per cent, was made to the existing duty, for one year, and three per cent, more afterwards! I at the same time, contrary to every principle of sound policy, the raw material was burdened with an additional duty of five per cent, and with pro¬ gressive duties from twenty to fifty per cent. ! 32 To this let me add the case of pottery and stone ware. Extensive manufactories of those articles were established during the war, and carried on successfully, to the advantage of the country, and the emolument of the undertakers. Produced from a raw material otherwise almost entirely worthless, these manufactures were entitled to peculiar pro¬ tection—and their bulk was a sufficient guard against smuggling, the bugbear so constantly held out to terrify the nation from any increase of the duties on manufactures. Mr. Dallas in his proposed ta¬ riff reported a duty of 30 per cent, which might have saved from ruin this branch of industry, the 32 While our government has burdened the raw material of the important but struggling woollen manufacture, with an immediate duty of 20 percent.—and prospective duties of 25 and 30, the Kritish government has wisely reduced the duty from six pence to one penny per lb. 92 Jlppendix. importation of the productions of which costs the. country about 1,100,000 per annum. The duty was reduced to 20 per cent.—and in consequence, the manufacture was almost entirely ruined. I next proceed to consider the effects of our po¬ licy, as regards immigrants and immigration. Wise governments have uniformly encouraged the immi¬ gration of talented foreigners into their territories, as a source of wealth and power. History is re¬ plete with instances of the immense advantages which have been derived from this system. The wicked and impolitic repeal of the edict of Nantes, drove some hundreds of thousands of Hugonot ar¬ tists, manufacturers, and mechanics, from France, to enjoy the precious and inalienable right of wor¬ shipping God, according to the dictates of their consciences. They were received with open arms in every part of Europe to which they fled for re¬ fuge. They amply repaid the kindness and hospi¬ tality they experienced, by imparting to England, Holland, and Germany, various arts which had be¬ fore been confined to France. They either intro¬ duced or greatly improved some of those arts and manufactures, which have since mainly contributed to elevate Great Britain to the towering height where she stands, the wonder and envy of the world, so far as substantial power and resources are concerned—and recently the arbitress of its destinies. If such has been the policy, as regards immigra ¬ tion, with nations thickly peopled—if such have been its salutary effects—how much more powerful the inducements, as applicable to the United States, whose population bears so small a proportion to its territory ? There is in fact no country in the world, except perhaps Russia, which is so strongly impel¬ led by sound policy, to promote immigration as the United States. Appendix. 93 There is, moreover, no country in the civilized world, which could hold out such great inducements to foreigners to emigrate from their own country— none, which might so readily be rendered what it was once styled—“ an asylum for the oppressed of all nations 55 —none, after which foreigners yearn so ardently—and none, to which they would more readily transfer themselves. Were manufactures adequately protected, and the country prosperous, as it would be in that case, there cannot be a doubt that every year would add at least 30,000 to our population, with all their ta¬ lents, their wealth, and their industry. As this number will probably appear extravagant, it may be proper to state the data on which it is predicated, which, I trust, will remove all doubt on this point. From statements in the Weekly Register, the editor of which is remarkably attentive to such subjects, it appears that in the week ending Aug. 16, 1816, between 12 and 1500 passengers arrived in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore—and in the next week, ending August 23,^there arrived 1354, in 23 vessels, besides several in two vessels, of which the numbers were not stated. According to Dr. Seybert, there arrived in ten ports of the United States, in the year 1817, no less than 22,240 passengers, which number, however, in¬ cluded citizens, as well as foreigners. The number of citizens could not have been very considerable; whereas of foreigners, great numbers, not register¬ ed, arrived by land and otherwise, from the British North American colonies, far more, in all probabi¬ lity, than the number of citizens who were regis¬ tered. By a return made by the mayor of New York, it appears, that, from the 2d of March, 1818, till De- 94 Appendix. cember 11, 1819, being little more than 21 months, there were entered at his office 18,929 foreign pas ¬ sengers, of whom 16,093 were British subjects. On close attention to the subject, he declared his con¬ viction that these were but two-thirds of those who had arrived within that time. According to this calculation, the aggregate was about 28,500, or at the rate of 16,000 per annum. Supposing that only an equal number arrived in all the other ports, it would make the number 32,000. But let it be observed, that, according to Dr. Seybert’s state¬ ment, above quoted, the number who arrived in New York in 1817, was only one-third of the whole. According to which rate, 1 might assume 48,000 per annum in 1818 and 1819. Ten thousand immigrants lately arrived in Up¬ per Canada in one season—of whom very probably, four-fifths would have come to the United States, had they had a prospect of advantageous employ¬ ment. These data will certainly bear me out ill the as¬ sumption of 30,000 per annum. The number has been reduced of late very low; because thousands who arrived in this country, at a great sacrifice of time and money, found they had not bettered their situation, and that it was difficult and scarcely possible for them to procure employment at their regular occupations. Of thosq thus disappointed, such as had means to pay their passage, returned home, and spread unfavourable accounts of the country, whereby the spirit of emi¬ gration was nearly annihilated. The National Jour¬ nal states the number of foreign passengers in 1823, from official documents, at only 6417, of whom it calculates that 1700 have returned, reducing the number who remained to about 4,700. It is a disheartening truth, that in a country ca- 95 Appendix. pable of maintaining one hundred times its present population, there are too many of almost every class—too many farmers—too many planters—too many merchants—too many lawyers—too many doctors—and too many of nearly every kind of manufacturers and mechanics. Hence there is no encouragement whatever to immigration. This arises from our citizens being wholly precluded by foreign supplies, from so many branches of business and such various occupations, that all those which are not thus closed against them, are crowded. There can be no truth more clear than this, that the greater the variety of occupations in a commu¬ nity, the greater the scope for ingenuity and talent, the greater the reward for industry, and the higher the grade of individual and general prosperity. I venture on an estimate of the advantages to be derived from an immigration of 20,000 persons an¬ nually for ten years, supposing their labour to add to the national wealth only a quarter dollar per day, on an average—and supposing them to bring into the country at the rate of 50 dollars each:— No. of im¬ migrants in the country Value of labour. Specie im¬ ported. First year - - Second year Third year - - Fourth year Fifth year - - Sixth year - - Seventh year - Eighth year - Ninth year - - Tenth year - - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 $ 1,560,000 3,120,000 4,680,000 6,240,000 7300,000 9,360,000 10,920,000 12,480,000 14,040,000 15,600,000 $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 i,odo,ooo •1,000,000 j Total - - - - 85,800,000 10,000,000 96 Appendix. If we suppose each individual immigrant to be worth to the state, 300 dollars, which is a low esti¬ mate, the whole would amount to the sum of 860,000,000. It has been very gravely asserted that this coun¬ try is peculiarly calculated for agriculture; and that while it possesses so much vacant land, it is impo¬ litic to take any measures to accelerate the growth of manufactures. There are, nevertheless, on the contrary, reasons in favour of fostering manufac¬ tures here, which do not exist to the same extent in Great Britain or France. Although the United States are as highly blest with the means of carry¬ ing on an extensive internal communication as any nation in the world, yet a very large portion of our territory is, and must for an age remain remote from the advantages of navigation, and, without the encouragement of manufactures, can never fully avail itself of the bounties of nature, lavished with a liberal hand. This is the situation of extensive regions in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, and the interior of Pennsylvania, and Virginia, which are 70, 80, or 100 miles from any navigable stream, and 4 or 500 from the Atlantic. Whereas, there are few parts of England more than £0, and of France more than 50 miles from the means of com¬ municating with that ocean. On the 12th of June, the sale of flour at New Orleans was dull at 84*20 to 4.75. Deduct the expense of transportation from parts of Kentucky remote from navigation, and this price will not pay the expense of cultivation. It is the part of wisdom to profit by the errors and misfortunes of others—of the reverse of wis¬ dom, not to profit by one’s own. We have had ample and dear-bought experience to warn us against the deleterious consequences of our present Appendix. 97 policy—but it appears in vain. I have already touched on the consequences of our extravagant, uncontrolled importations in 1783 and 4. A bare reference to those produced by a similar course in 1815 and 16, is enough. They are too fresh in the memory of the many who suffered, and of the few who profited by their sufferings, to require detail. But I request your attention to the period from the organization of our government till the close of the late war. From the year 1789 till the year 1812, a period of 23 years, this country enjoyed a peace inter¬ rupted only by the short contest of a few months with France. During a large portion of the time, our commerce flourished. Our farmers had sure markets and high prices for their produce. Our statesmen, believing that we were not “ ripe for manufactures bestowed no pains to foster or pro¬ tect them. But the native energy of our citizens overcame all difficulties so far as regarded most of the manufactures depending on manual labour, with which they supplied the home demand, as hats, shoes, saddlery, carriages, books, types, and a va¬ riety of others. But in the all-important articles of clothing, woollens, cottons, and linens, we were baffled completely. We were almost altogether clothed by Great Britain. What was the conse¬ quence? Just previous to the commencement of the late war, the nation owed a tribute to the In¬ dians of 6000 blankets, which she was unable to furnish. She was cut off from British supplies by the non-intercourse law: and, by her previous withering policy, was rendered unable to produce them from her own resources! The destitution of these means was proclaimed to the world, by a formal proposition on the part of the secretary of war, to repeal the non-intercourse, so as to enable i !)8 Appendix. us to procure them from Great Britain!! 33 This single fact is sufficient to determine the pernicious character of the misguided policy which placed a powerful, enterprising, and industrious nation in such a disgraceful situation, and sacrificed for so long a period, at least 10,000,000 of dollars an¬ nually for clothing, which our own citizens could have furnished. But this is far from the whole of the evil. So in¬ tense were the sufferings of our soldiers in the war on the north-western frontier, for want of adequate clothing, that it is confidently asserted, and with every appearance of truth, that as many of them, in certain stages of the war, fell victims to the in¬ clemency of the weather, as by the arms of the enemy. This ought to be an eternal lesson to our states¬ men, against the danger, and folly of trusting to I have not been able, after a most diligent research, to procure the report of the secretary at war, soliciting a repeal of the non-intercourse law—but I annex the pro¬ ceedings of congress on the subject, which are equally conclusive— House of Representatives, U. S. Jan. 2, 1812. ce A motion was made by Mr. M’Kee and seconded, that “ the House do come to the following resolution : “Resolved, That the Committee of Commerce and “ Manufactures be instructed to inquire into the expedi- “ ency of authorizing by law, the introduction into the “ United States of such foreign goods as may be necessary “ for the usual supplies of the Indian department, and that “ they have leave to report by bill or otherwise. “ The said resolution was read and ordered to lie on the “ table. “ Mr. M’Kee laid before the House a letter from the “ Secretary of War, addressed to him as chairman of the ‘‘committee on Indian affairs, stating the difficulty of pro- “ curing goods suitable for the Indian trade, which was “also ordered to lie on the table ”— Journal?, 1811—12*, p, 214 Appendix . 99 foreign supplies for the essential articles of cloth¬ ing. But the lesson was entirely lost upon them at the close of the war. They allowed the chief part of those who had embarked their all in esta¬ blishments for furnishing the nation with clothing during the war, to be ruined for want of protection on the return of peace. A feature in our affairs far more deplorable, as regards the national safety, remains to be stated. Notwithstanding the immense advantages we so long possessed, our treasury was completely bank¬ rupt in two years ! And the utmost the govern¬ ment was able to raise by imposts, taxes and excises, during the whole war, of 30 months, was § 35,642,- 448 !—by loans, at usurious rates, g 45,172,581!— and, to make up the balance of the expenses of the war, recourse was had to the issue of exchequer bills, to the amount of g 17,227,280, which depre¬ ciated in the hands of the public creditors, 8, 10, and even 12 per cent.! This was the calamitous situation of a nation, in the vigour of its youth, which in its infancy had maintained a struggle with the power of G. Britain for seven years—a nation, a large portion of whose resources had been squan¬ dered to support foreign industry for the preceding twenty-three years! The history of the world pre¬ sents no instance of a nation with so many and such transcendant blessings, exhibiting such a state of fi¬ nancial decrepitude in the same short space of time. The miserable policy which produced such a state of things will stand condemned as long as history re¬ mains. It is worth while to devote a few moments to the consideration of our prospects in the event of be¬ ing involved in another war, a contingency of which a wise statesman ought never to lose sight. As our government depends for revenue almost alto¬ gether on impost, contrary to the universal practice 100 Appendix. of other nations, a war would at once cut off the chief part of our resources. Thus this instrument of finance, like a treacherous friend, will always desert us in our greatest need. We should be obliged to recur to direct taxes, excises, and loans. And it is a most melancholy truth, that our citi¬ zens, with the exception of a few capitalists, are now far less able to support the necessary burdens, being generally in much more depressed circum¬ stances, than they were in 1812. Of this no doubt can remain, on a view of the statements of the si¬ tuation. of the country, as given by various mem¬ bers of congress, and quoted in a preceding part of this address. And if our treasury became bank¬ rupt in 1814, and the resources of the govern¬ ment were exhausted in so short a space, what a melancholy prospect presents itself to our view in the event of a future war ? In order duly to appreciate our policy and its unfor¬ tunate effects, it may be proper to take a view of the result of the British policy, diametrically opposite to ours. Our duties are, with few exceptions, calculated to encourage the importation of foreign manufactures, which depress and crush our domestic industry. The duties of Great Britain are regulated so as to exclude every thing with which she can supply herself. I have shown the effect of ours in a war of 30 months. Now let us see the result of her’s in a war of above twenty years. 6< The tree is known by its fruit.’ 9 Great Britain raised during that war no less than § 7,038,000,000, of which g 4,653,000,000 were by impost, direct taxes and excises—and the remain¬ der by loans. Her subjects felt this enormous taxation less than our citizens did our very light taxes. Her subsi¬ dies to foreign powers amounted to S6 247,500,000. Appendix. . 101 If the contrast during the war was so striking, it is no less so at present. She has remitted within the last two years, taxes to the amount of g 28,237,- 500 ; has an annual surplus of g 22,500,000, with which she has established an efficient sinking fund; and has paid off a very large amount of her na¬ tional debt. She has been enabled to reduce g697,- 500,000 of her debt from 5 to 4 per cent.—and g 310,000,000 of 4 per cents, to 3^. Her domes¬ tic exports are annually increasing in amount. Her manufactures are extending astonishingly. Her ex¬ ports of cotton goods, which in 1820 were $74,- 750,000, were in 1823, g 99,000,000. She draws wealth from every quarter of the world with which she has intercourse, so that she has probably at this hour more specie than half Europe and the whole of the United States. Her merchants are the general bankers of all the distressed govern¬ ments of the new and old world. Loans have been made, dr instalments paid during the last year, in London to the amount of £ 50,000,000 or g225,- 000,000. 34 A loan of a fifth part of the sum to any foreign nation would reduce all the banks in the United States to bankruptcy, and overspread the land with devastation and ruin. 34 Extract from a late London paper . “ England may be denominated the “ Great Banking House” of Europe. Within the last year she has loaned to other states, over ^50,000,000 The following is a list of loans paid or contracted to be paid, in 1824. French 19,900,000 $ Brought over ^32,120,000 Hutch - - 2*000,0p0 J Buenos Ayres 1,000,000 Colombian - 4,000,000 5 Greek - - 892,000 Brazil - - 2,500,000 ? Mexican - 8,800,000 Portuguese - 500,000 j Spanish - 5,000,000 Austrian - 500,0001 Mines - - 500,000 Peruvian - 2,720,000 jI Neapolitan - 2,000,000 Carried over £ 32,120,000 \ Total - £ 50,312,000” i 2 102 Appendix. Having already glanced at the actual situation of this country, I shall confine myself here to a brief retrospect. In the sixth year of peace, our revenue having fallen short, it was proposed to have re¬ course to an excise. But it was formally declared by a committee of the House of Representatives of the United States, that “ the imposition of an ex¬ cise in that season of extreme distress , would be unwise!” and that 4t if imposed , it would he difficult to collect; and , if collected , it would , in some parts of the union , he in paper little available!” In the year 1822, our government made an attempt to convert SB,000,000 of 7 per cents, and §18,000,000 of 6 per cents, into fives, irredeemable for fifteen years—but were unable to effect it. Our sinking fund has been absorbed and sunk into oblivion. And we have had, after five years of peace, to bor¬ row S 8,000,000 to meet the exigencies of the go¬ vernment! What a glorious triumph the preceding facts fur¬ nish for the British policy, as regards national resources! What a heart-rending contrast our af¬ fairs exhibit!—Can a policy producing such blight¬ ing consequences, be other than deleterious? I beg attention to one more strong and striking contrast between our policy and that of Great Bri¬ tain. The manufacturers of that country are con¬ stantly struggling to engross the supply of foreign markets . In this they are aided by the government and the merchants, the former of whom regard manufactures as the most certain basis on which to erect the edifice of national prosperity. The lat¬ ter regard the interest and prosperity of the manu¬ facturers as identified with their own. Our manu¬ facturers have to struggle— not for foreign markets , from nearly all of which they are excluded. No. Appendix. 103 Their straggle is for a share of the domestic mar¬ ket —for the supply of their own fellow citizens— and this struggle they are obliged to maintain with very unequal odds, not only with the foreign manu¬ facturers and merchants, but with their own go¬ vernment and their own merchants—the latter of whom have, from the commencement of the govern¬ ment to the present hour, resisted every serious at¬ tempt to protect their fellow citizens from the overwhelming competition of foreign rivals—and the former has uniformly regarded them with jealousy! Whatever high degree of talents, individual members of congress may possess, it is to be pre¬ sumed that there scarcely can be found a man among them, who, in those moments when self love leads us to appreciate our intellectual powers, at their utmost value, could fondly flatter himself that his opinions should have more weight with this na¬ tion than those of Franklin, Jefferson, and Hamil¬ ton, three of the most highly gifted men who have figured in the American annals, whose sentiments are clear and decisive on this subject, and who pro¬ nounce the strongest condemnation of the system we pursue. Out of the numerous maxims of those illustrious citizens, I shall quote a few, and trust that their cogency will settle the minds of those who are wavering on this important subject—con¬ firm those who advocate a change in our policy— and induce those who are opposed to that change, to reconsider the subject, laying aside, as far as practicable, inveterate prejudices. I commence with Thomas Jeflerson, whose early opinions on the subject have been often quoted against the protection of manufactures. “ Where a nation imposes high duties on our produc- 104 Appendix. " tions, OR PROHIBITS THEM ALTOGETHER, IT “ MAY BE PROPER FOR US TO DO THE SAME BY “ THEIRS— -first burdening or excluding those productions “ ‘which they bring here in competition -with our (nun of the "same kind; selecting next such manufactures as 'toe take (i from them in greatest quantity, and -which at the same time " we could the soonest furnish to ourselves , or obtain from “ other countries; imposing on them duties Jight at first, “but heavier and heavier afterwards, as other channels of “ supply open. “ Such duties, having the effect of indirect encourage- " ment to domestic manufactures of the same kind, may “ induce the manufacturer to come himself into these states, “ where cheaper subsistence, equal laws, and a vent for “ his wares, free of duty, may insure him the highest pro- “fits from his skill and industry. The oppressions of our “ agriculture in foreign parts would thus be made the occasion “of relieving it from a dependance on the councils and conduct * 6 of others, and of promoting arts, manufactures , and pop ula- “ tion at home.” 3 * Next appears Alexander Hamilton, a tower of strength on this subject. “There appear strong reasons to regard the foreign de- "mand for our surplus produce as too uncertain a reliance , “and to desire a substitute for it, IN AN EXTENSIVE “ DOMESTIC MARKET.” 36 “ Manufacturers, who constitute the most numerous “ class, after the cultivators of land, are for that reason “ the principal consumers of the surplus of their labour.” 37 “This idea of an extensive domestic market for the “ surplus produce of the soil is of the first consequence. "It is, of all things, THAT WHICH MOST EFFECTU¬ ALLY CONDUCES TO A FLOURISHING STATE “OF AGRICULTURE. 33 ” “The establishment of manufactures is calculated not 35 Jefferson’s Report on the Privileges and Restrictions of the Commerce of the United States in Foreign Coun¬ tries. 36 Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures, p. 35. 37 Ibid. 3S Ibid. Appendix. 105 “ only to increase the general stock of useful and produc¬ tive labour; but even to improve the state of agriculture in “particular; certainly to advance the interests of those “ who are engaged in it.” 39 “ Though last, not least in favour,” Dr. Frank¬ lin :— “ Foreign luxuries, and needless manufactures imported “and used in a nation, INCREASE THE PEOPLE OF “THE NATION THAT FURNISHES THEM, AND “DIMINISH THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION THAT “ USES THEM.” 40 “ Laws, therefore, that prevent such importations, and, “on the contrary, promote the exportation of manufac- “ tures to be consumed in foreign countries, may be called, “ (with respect to the people that make them,) generative “laws, as , BY INCREASING SUBSISTENCE, THEY “ENCOURAGE MARRIAGE.” 41 “Such laws, likewise, strengthen a nation doubly, by “increasing its own people , and diminishing its neigh¬ bours.” 42 I shall to these strong and pointed maxims, add the sentiments of one of the most able political eco¬ nomists of Europe, Anderson, who wrote a cele¬ brated treatise on the promotion of national in¬ dustry. “ No earthly method remains for encouraging agricul- “ ture, where it has not reared up its head, that can be “ considered in any way efficacious , but the establishing pro - “per manufactures in those countries you wish to encourage .” 43 “ If a manufacture be established in any rich and fertile “ country, by convening a number of people in one place, “ who must all be fed by the farmer , without interfering “ with any of his necessary operations, THEY ESTA- “ BLISH A READY MARKET FOR THE PRODUCE “ OF HIS FARM, AND THUS THROW MONEY IN- “TO HIS HANDS, AND GIVE SPIRIT AND ENERGY “ TO HIS CULTURE.” 44 39 Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures, p. 35. 40 Franklin, iv. p. 189. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Anderson on Industry, p. 70. 44 Idem, 37. 106 Appendix. “ Insurmountable obstacles lie in the way of a farmer in “ an unimproved country, who has nothing but commerce ‘‘alone to depend upon for providing a market for the “ produce of his farm.” 45 The case of Hamilton, as I have observed on various occasions, is peculiarly strong and striking. He was the acknowledged leader of a powerful , and, as such, attracted a ten-fold share of the hostility of its adversaries, at a period when party spirit raged with extraordinary violence. Of the manufacturers throughout the United States, nine-tenths were jealous of him, and hostile to his politics. His associations were chiefly among, and of course his bias leaned towards, the mercantile corps. He could not consequently be suspected for a moment of being led astray to favour the views of his political enemies. His maxims in favour of manufactures, are therefore entitled to the high¬ est degree of attention. Had he declared himself averse to their protection, there might be some reason to suspect him of being biassed by resent¬ ment for the hostility of the manufacturers, and by his predilection in favour of the commercial interest. This able statesman directed all the energies of his powerful mind to this great subject, in pur¬ suance of a requisition of congress. He availed himself of the knowledge of all the writers who had gone before him, and embodied in a small vo¬ lume the collected wisdom of ages, one of the proud¬ est monuments of practical policy which the world has ever produced. That this is not extravagant panegyric, will not be controverted by any man who reads it with due attention, and with a mind untrammelled by plausible but deleterious theories, fraught with the ruin of those countries which are deluded into their adoption. Tested by the expe- 45 Anderson on Industry, p. 7 0. Appendix. 107 rienee of the prosperous as well as the wretched nations of Europe, his maxims stand the severest scrutiny. I well know how unpopular many of those sen¬ timents are with a large portion of my hearers, and of this community—as well as the odium that always attaches to those who encounter public prejudices. These considerations have great weight, and would be sufficient to impose silence on me in any cause of minor magnitude. But convinced that the “ wealth, power, and resources” of the nation, as well as individual prosperity and happiness, are deeply interested in the question, I could not for a moment hesitate to pursue my course under all the responsibility with which it is connected. Extracts from Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures . “ Though it were true, that the immediate and certain