Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

tween imports for the consumption of their values, and imports of permanent and increasing value, as the one class and the other, respectively, affect national wealth; and the second is, that they do not distinguish between the gains of one party which are losses to others, or injuries to the public, and gains which do no harm to others, or the public, but are indifferent in their relative effects, or beneficial.

A merchant panders to the appetites, fancy, tastes, and extravagant propensities of his customers-not to benefit them, but for his own profit. The Free-Trade economists say, that his customers get an equivalent. That they get a technical equivalent, we do not deny; or we are willing to grant it. If a customer buys and drinks a gallon of brandy, or of wine, imported, not only the profit of the merchant, but the cost, is at the expense of the community, unless it can be shown, that the community is benefited; which would be very difficult. Allowing that the profit of the merchant stays in the country, it is no increase of its capital, but has only changed hands; whereas, the brandy and wine being imports, the capital of the country is minus the cost, and is not augmented by the profit of the merchant. It is the same with cloths and with everything imported for the consumption of its value at home. The profits of merchants, in such cases, are no augmentation of domestic capital; and the cost, which is the principal part of the price, is so much subtraction from the capital of the country; so that there is no gain, and apparently much loss.

So long, however, as the country pays for these imports by exports of its surplus products, and does not part with its money, with its "tools of trade," but employs its money at home to move these surpluses on to their foreign destination, and to distribute the imports received in exchange for them, then the profits of merchants are an augmentation of domestic capital; as are also all the imports of a durable and useful kind, to be incorporated with the permanent capital of the country, or by such incorporation to render domestic capital more valuable and more productive; but the cost of all that is consumed to the annihilation of its value, must be ranked with luxuries which the country can afford, and not with the materials of its wealth, or increased capital. It is really no augmentation of wealth, any farther than the profits of the trade are concerned, notwithstanding that all these imports are technical equivalents.

Although there is no loss, but some gain, so long as the money,

of the country, or its "tools of trade," are not, but only its surplus products, are exported to pay for these imports, nevertheless, the gain of the nation would be much greater, and all the greater of the cost of these imports, so far as, by a protective policy, they could be produced at home, in exchange for the same products, provided they could be produced equally or more cheap; and it has been elsewhere shown, that, whatever is produced at home, under a protective system, which could not otherwise be produced, is, generally, and in the end always, cheaper than the foreign product. Although, therefore, the imports received in exchange for surplus domestic products exported, may be technically called equivalents, and are an augmentation of national capital, so long as the nation's "tools of trade" are not required to pay for them; still the national capital would be as much more augmented as the cost of all these imports that could be produced at home, under a protective system, it being supposed that their domestic production would consume the articles otherwise exported to purchase them.

We are aware that the Free-Trade economists are ready on this point to say, and that they have said, that what you take off from home labor to produce these articles of manufacture-supposing them to be of this kind-under a protective system, you subtract from agriculture and other labor, and therefore lose what this labor would produce in those quarters; to which we answer, first, that the labor thus diverted, is but a small fraction of the labor of the country; and next, that the additional stimulant which this home market imparts to other departments of labor, is more than a compensation for this loss. American labor is so independent, that its power is never stretched to that ne plus ultra of exertion, as in Europe, which the theory of this reply to us supposes; and it is capable, when prompted by interest, not only of filling up this vacuum, when created, but much more. This reply, therefore, can not answer its intended purpose, and our argument prevails, to wit, that the capital of the nation would be augmented to the full amount of the cost of these articles, so far as they could be produced at home under a protective system, notwithstanding that the exchanges with foreign parts are allowed to be equivalents. The home production thus saves to the country the cost of one of these equivalents, so that it realizes both.

But when the nation buys of all foreign parts more than it sells to them of its own surplus products, and its cash, in other words, its "tools of trade," are put in requisition to settle balances. these

exchanges, too, may be allowed to be technical equivalents. We concede this point. But there is one point claimed by our opponents, which we can not concede, viz., that this gold and silver, these "tools of trade," thus parted with for imports, are mere commodities; that they occupy the same position in trade as the commodities for which they are exchanged; and that they are only subjects of trade. We allow, that they are commodities, but deny that they occupy the same position with others. They are instruments, "tools," not subjects of trade, when they go to settle balances.

But we are told that what the merchants gain in foreign trade, the nation gains. Go back to the disastrous period of 1836-'37. The merchants had for years been growing rich by excessive imports, tempting the people to buy and consume; and the end of it all was a general bankruptcy. The very means by which merchants made princely fortunes, prostrated the nation. Yet, according to these Free-Trade economists, we had our equivalents, and were growing rich. Long, however, before the equivalents due from us were rendered, we were forced to stop payment, and fund the debt. Having lost our "tools of trade," we continued in a state of insolvency, and poor, till the tariff of 1842 enabled us to begin making new "tools," and to hammer away again to get out of debt. Still the Free-Trade economists say, there was no harm in our losing these "tools;" gold and silver are nothing but commodities in trade; we had our equivalents, and were growing rich all the while.

We will not, therefore, consent to the imputation of denying that the whole is equal to its parts, when we say that the gains of individuals in foreign trade, are no certain evidence of the gain of the nation, and that a nation may be impoverished by the very acts which enrich some of its individuals. It must first be considered and determined whether these gains of individuals come from without or within the nation. If they come from without, the nation, other things being equal, is enriched; if from within, it is Peter giving to Paul. The nation is not enriched, and may be impoverished. It is inevitably impoverished, if the price only passes from Peter, the consumer, to Paul, the merchant, that Paul, after retaining his profit, may remit the cost to the foreign producer, if that remittance is composed of the nation's "tools of trade."

Doubtless the people of the United States can produce enough for all their necessities, without money, as their forefathers did,

under the British crown, and during the confederation. But will they be content? Have they not a right so to protect themselves, as to be able to have money enough circulating among them to do their business with? It is vastly convenient and economical to trade with money, and not be forced back to barter. It is, indeed, the very purpose of money, to facilitate the operations of barter, and to abridge its round, till it becomes no round at all, so that a man who has money can always get the thing he wants, instead of being compelled to barter for it. But let the money of a community go to pay its foreign debts, which it ought never to have contracted, and all is at a stand.

But it is worth while to consider more particularly the difference between imports for consumption of their values, and imports of permanent value, to be incorporated with the permanent or productive capital of the country, or to be worked over as raw materials for the increase of its value by home labor; and to consider them, as they, respectively, subtract from or add to the capital and wealth of the country. All will be surprised, who do not know the fact, when told that the Free-Trade economists make no distinction between imports for consumption of their values, and imports of permanent or increasing value, as the two kinds affect the wealth of a nation.

Take, for example, the excessive imports into the United States, before the revulsion of 1836-237, chiefly for consumption of their values, as $20,000,000 of silks a year, and such like, till, in 1836, the imports exceeded the exports by $60,000,000. A large portion of these excesses of imports, may be assumed as consisting chiefly of articles for the consumption of their values, of which no quid pro quo could afterward be found. They went into the bellies and on the backs of an unwise and extravagant people, and the merchants made their fortunes by it. These goods could not have arrived at their destination without large profits; and the doctrine of the Free-Trade economists is, that the gain of individuals is the gain of the nation. It is by such doctrine, that the United States have repeatedly been brought to the verge of ruin, and more than once plunged into the abyss.

But imports of permanent value, which constitute a part of the capital of the country, and imports of raw materials, to be worked over and upon for the multiplication of their values, occupy a very different position in public economy, from those the values of which are consumed in the use. The following history of a pound of

[ocr errors]

cotton, from an English paper, will illustrate the values added by manufacturing: "There was sent off for London, lately, from Glasgow, a small piece of muslin, about one pound weight, the history of which is as follows: The cotton came from the United States to London; from London it went to Manchester, where it was manufactured into yarn; from Manchester it was sent to Paisley, where it was woven; it was sent to Ayrshire next, where it was tamboured; afterward it was conveyed to Dumbarton, where it was handsewed and again returned to Paisley, when it was sent to a distant part of the county of Renfrew to be bleached, and was returned to Paisley; then sent per coach to London. It is difficult precisely to ascertain the time taken to bring this article to market, but it may be pretty near the truth to reckon it two years from the time it was packed in America till its cloth arrived at the merchant's warehouse in London, whither it must have been conveyed 3,000 miles by sea, and 920 by land, and contributed toward the support of no less than 150 people, whose services were necessary in the carriage and manufacture of this small quantity of cotton, and by which the value has been advanced 2,000 per cent. What

is said of this piece, is descriptive of no inconsiderable part of the trade."

The following is another extract from an English journal to the same point:

"The quantity of cast-iron worth £1 sterling, becomes worth the following

[blocks in formation]

"The quantity of bar iron worth £1 sterling, becomes, when formed into

[blocks in formation]

The question with Americans is, whether these values, running up, in one instance, from 1 to 2,000, in another, from 1 to 5896, and in a third, 1 to 50,000, shall be created at home, and remain here as part of the capital of the nation; or whether they shall be created abroad, and this capital be lost to us? These are only three of hundreds of similar instances, involving, as the case may

« AnteriorContinuar »