Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

bring back these "tools ;" and the necessity of France, in this case, subjected her to some peril, as it will at any time be in the power of the emperor of Russia, by a coup-de-main operation, suddenly to throw these stocks into market, and create a panic, to the great injury of France. But "necessity knows no law." France wanted more "tools of trade," and must have them. If these stocks had been sold in Paris, to Frenchmen, the price would not have come from abroad, to meet the exigency; but, in selling them to the emperor of Russia, it brought 50,000,000 of francs directly into France, as so much addition to its "numeraire," or cash. But, according to Adam Smith and company, it was no misfortune to France to have wanted this amount of specie, nor any benefit to get it.*

Because money will supply wants and gratify desires, by procuring the means, it is thence too naturally concluded, that wealth consists in money; it is true, that a given amount of money, in any one's possession, makes him a rich or wealthy man, according to the standard of wealth assumed. Nevertheless, money, though it may be the fortune of an individual, because it will supply his wants and gratify his desires, is not, in itself, any considerable part of the wealth of a community or of a state. If the annual product of the industry and labor of the people of the United States, be $2,000,000,000, as is supposed, that product is an exponent of their wealth; and it is supposed, that not a penny of it consists in money. We do not produce money, to any extent worth naming. If it requires fifty millions of money to move such portions of this product to their various destinations, as are not consumed on the premises where they are created, say a moiety of them, then the amount of money employed in moving these products to their destination, is as one fortieth of their amount. And if this product be to its sources and means, or to the capital of the country, as 6 to 100, the rate of interest, then the money of the country is only asth of youths of the national capital-a fraction of the general wealth hardly worth naming.

The position and functions of money, in this movement, are to the people, as the "tools of trade" to a man in any pursuit. As a man can not do his business without his tools, so neither can a people trade without money. Money, with a nation, is permanent, and

⚫ Since writing the above, the French revolution of February, 1848, has occurred; but that makes no difference with the argument. France was in want of specie at that time, under Louis Philippe, and this transaction was negotiated to obtain it.

ought to be fixed capital, as the tools of a mechanic are. It occupies the same position in trade. If a mechanic has but half a set of tools, he can not work, except under great disadvantage. It is the same with a people, in regard to money: they want a complete set of tools, and will work very badly with half a set. And yet Free Trade says, it is no matter, whether you sell your tools, or your other commodities.

That money is a fraction of the public wealth, as permanent capital, occupying the position, and discharging the functions of tools, in creating and promoting general wealth, can not be denied; but it is a small fraction; in the strict sense, it can hardly be called wealth; but is more properly the means of it. But, as it is the most essential element of wealth, in public economy, as a means, there is no harm in calling it by that name, so far as it goes, if its proper position and functions are understood. It is certain, there can be no wealth, in the sense of prosperity, without it. If fifty millions of active money capital are necessary to move all the surplus products of every point of the United States, to their destination, anything less than that would be a check to the movement; half of it would be a very serious ca'amity, and occasion universal distress. And yet Free Trade says, it is no matter half is as good : as the whole. Adam Smith, as shown in another place, undertook to prove, that the American colonies were very well off, when they had no money at all.

Money itself is no farther wealth than as the means of producing it, and for the amount of the precious metals which it comprehends, they being in demand for other uses; and the money of a country, and of the world, as shown above, is but a small fraction of its wealth. It may happen that all of an individual's wealth is vested in money; but that of a nation can never be; nor more than a small fraction.

The amount of money which a nation requires, to effectuate the greatest amount of production in exchangeable values, and to circulate them so as to produce the greatest income, in other words, to move all surpluses to the best market, is a question of considerable importance. The European economists seem to agree, so far as we have observed, that a nation requires only money enough to circulate its exchangeable values which require movement in trade, to and fro, outward and inward. This doctrine is doubtless correct; but their idea of the application of it, would not exactly suit us. They appear to assume a ne plus ultra of demand, an ascer

tainable limit, from an existing state of things; that is, that this state of things has nearly or quite exhausted its requirements or uses of money. This does not apply to the United States. We have never yet come in sight of the end to which an increase of money might not be profitably applied for the production of wealth, so inexhaustible are our resources; nor has there ever been a tine when it could be said there was too much money, or even enough, in the country, so as to want use. The extravagant speculations of 1836-'7, are not in point; because they were not based on money; but were mere bubbles, doomed to burst, for want of money as a foundation.

A system of public economy, therefore, adapted to the state of things found in Europe, limiting the uses of money, and thus limiting the amount required, may be very ill adapted to the United States, where the uses for money are comparatively without limit. The "kit of tools" for the trade and commerce of Europe, might be very complete, under a system, which would leave ours very incomplete. It is for us to judge what we want, and for them to judge what they want. It is evident that European economists. had no idea of the state of things here, in this particular. When was there a time, that this nation, or any part of it, or any party or person in it, could not have done more in the production of wealth, if they had had more money to do it with? We want, then, a system of public economy, which shall not only tend to keep in the country what is commonly reckoned enough of money, to carry on its trade and commerce; but we want a system that shall tend to increase that amount, as far as may be, in a degree, commensurate with the development of the means for its profitable use. As yet, it has never been so.

It is unfair, and shows a want of candor, when Smith, Say, Ricardo, M'Culloch, and others of that school, while engaged in their argument on the balance of trade, treat their opponents as misers, wishing to hoard up money; or to represent them as insisting on taking nothing but specie for what they sell. It is easy to set up a man of straw in this way, and knock him to the winds, appearing to come off victorious. But this is not our position. We only insist, that a nation must so regulate its trade with foreign parts, that, taking it all together, more money should not habitually go from the country, than comes back; that, if more specie is annually exported than is imported, the nation will soon be in commercial troubles, for want of money to trade with; that, in the

United States-we do not speak for other nations—a protective system is indispensable to prevent such a public disaster; that, under such a system, we do not trade less abroad, as our opponents aver, but more; that, in the long run, both our exports and imports of other commodities than money, will be greater; and that the only way for us to secure this growth and prosperity of commerce, is by a protective system. Such being the operation of this system, when properly adjusted, as proved in other parts of this work-it being supposed that we draw in as much money as we send out, and rather more than less-money, as the instrument of trade, is never wanting, can not be wanting. Not that we propose to have any lie idle. That would be waste. There would be little danger of that, so long as the untouched resources of wealth in this country, are so many and so great; and so long as a moiety of its capabilities, more or less, are forced to lie in repose for want of means.

It is decidedly bad economy, in a man or a nation to hoard up money. If a thriving man gets more money than he wants to use in his business or trade, he will invest it somewhere, that it may do business and trade without his agency or care, and afford him an income. But as a prudent man, he will take care not to have less money at his command, than his business or trade requires. In case he should have less, his affairs will suffer, and his estate will be injured. He may even be so embarrassed as to be forced into bankruptcy, broken up, and perhaps ruined-all for want of a sound system of economy, for buying too much, and running in debt without means to pay. So a nation, for precisely the same reasons, may fall into the same situation, in its foreign commercial relations, as has several times happened to the United States—all for want of a sound system of public economy. And such a system, it will be observed, as its name imports, is directly opposed to a system of Free Trade. It will also be observed, that, whenever commercial revulsions have come over this country, it was in consequence of the prevalence of Free-Trade principles and practice. There is no difference between the loose and profligate habits of private individuals, which involve them in pecuniary troubles, and Free-Trade, which always brings like consequences to this country.

Although it is not as bad for a man or a nation, to have money hoarded up and lying idle, as to have too little, and though it can not be said to be positively calamitous, nevertheless, it is bad econ

omy—it is waste. And as it is important for a man to have money enough for his own business, so it is equally important for a nation; and the same means, in both cases, that is, private economy in one, and public economy in the other, must be employed for the attainment of this end. In the one case, the rules are private; in the other, public; but in both, they are equally opposed to Free Trade. The system of economy in each case consists in a tariff of duties, the great aim of which is, not to buy too much, to live within means, and to have plenty of means; that is, plenty of "tools of trade."

Nor is there any danger that money being plenty, will lie idle, except in a miser's chest, or a monarch's vault. And misers certainly are diminishing in numbers as commerce enlarges its sphere, and becomes more active and more productive. Men usually, especially the Anglo-Saxon race, and more especially the American branch of that race, are too sensible of the value of money, as a productive power, not to put it to use as it accumulates. There never yet has been a time, in the history of this country, when there was an excess of money in it, above the demands for its use, or beyond the scope of the subjects of a profitable investment; especially, and more than all, profitable to labor; and the greatest commercial evil the country has ever suffered, has been the want of money. One single fact, viz., the more than double value of money in the United States, as compared with its average value in Europe and other foreign parts, is conclusive evidence on this point. The incalculably diversified and yet undeveloped resources of this country, and its unassayed improvements of which it is so immensely susceptible, present a field for the employment of money, that is vast and boundless-a field which has long invoked, and still invokes, without response, an application of capital, in an amount which ages of the greatest prosperity will not furnish. As a question of public economy, therefore, and one of the greatest moment, it seems to be imperatively demanded, that our system of foreign commercial policy should be so arranged and adjusted, as to draw moneyed capital to the country, and retain it here for the execution of these grand and momentous objects; above all, that this policy should not be left so loose and free as to oblige us to lose money in our foreign trade, as we have done heretofore, and thus not only disappoint and put far off these great and stupendous home enterprises, but cripple and embarrass the comparatively small endeavors already attempted, which are with difficulty

« AnteriorContinuar »