University of South Carolina Libraries
D W ^ * SIMS, STATE prutter. COLUMBIA, S. C. MAY 8, 1829. *7 Vol. XV.?-No. I?. nli ? IBSEisheS^^ TKHMS?Tkrts Oollnrt per snnum, pmymblt m ?frwM,ir Air MrtfiyaNi ?f tks**tsl Us par. JWVHIl TISr.MFXTHiyittritd n( the until rift* AMKIUCAN TAHIKK?conctwiir.D. [IV?> Iks Edinburgh lUtint, M. JCCF/.J The truth of whirt has now been stated is vary strikingly exemplified by what hM Actually occurred to America. The manu facture of Woolen gooda la one which Coo grata Mtmi to have been most anxious to promutc. In WW, an ad valorem duty of 5 per cent wea laid for the take of revenue, on all woolen cloth* Imported Into the repub* lie; 1708, after the restrictive mania had begun to gather strength, the duty wae rai ted front 7 to 12| per cents In 1804, K was railed to 15 per cents in 1819, during the war with England,It waa Incrreacd to 97 per centsm 1810, after peace waa restored, It waa reduced to 95 per cents to 1890, it waa nominally raised to S3), but nally to 38 per cent! This waa pretty wells but it tell tar abort of what ha* atoce been effected. By the tariff recently patted, It waa enacted that all gonda which coat 50 cents, (9s. lid.) u yaid, or under, shall be deemed to have coat 50 cents, and shall be charged witli a duty of 45 per cent ad valorem; and it ia further enacted, that all gooda which coat above 50 cents the yard, and not more than 100 ccnta, uhall be conildrred as costing 100 cents, or 4s. 3d. and shall fiau a duty of 43 ficr cent on that suntf so that one yard of cloth shall pay a duty ol 45 per cent, and that which coat 51 cents will be valued nt 100, and will consequently pay u duty of 45 cent*or ne.-rlyOOrercent! The wholo in iquity of thu regulation ia not apparent at n the upper classes. price of by much the largeat portion clotlt which the former make use of nt first sight j for it Is so devised as to press far more heavily on tlte lower and middle thnn on the upper classes. The of the cl varies from 50 to 100 cents a yard sand while this is loaded with a duty varying from 90 95 per cent* or 671 per cent at an average superfine cloth costing four dollars the yard in only loaded with n duty of 50 per rent! The encouragement of smuggling and fraud seems also to have been a iavwiritc object with the framer* of this regulations for tney have so contrived it, that if an impottercau, by taisifvinR bis papers or otherwise, sue* ceed in sinking the price of his goods from 51 to 50 c?nts, he will save 45 l>?*r cent of Uutyl This is out-hcroding old George Rove, and would, we are inclined to think satisfy even lord Malmabury lumaelf. Whether, indeed, there be any regulution equally iniquitous and absurd in the com mercial rode of Austria or Spain, is what we very urn- h doubts but, objectionable and vexatious as many of our custom-house re gulntions certainly are, still it is satisfactory to know that the verv worst amongst them is fair and reasonable compared with the above. TUe population of the United State* it cs timated, in a very able and detailed exam ination of the new tariff by a committee of the citizens of Boston And its vicinity, at 13 million*; and the value of the annual con sumption ot woollen goods it supposed to amount at an average, to 6 dollars or Ms. 6d. a head, giving a total sum of about 73,000, ?00 of dollars for the entire value of the wool lens consumed in the Union. But if the dutiea were reduced, the cost of the wool* lens would be reduced. It is estimated that under the tariff of 1824, the various char ges, including the duty of 3S per cent, the expense of freight and insurance, the profits <>f the Importing and exporting merchants, See. attending the importation of foreign woollens Into the United States, amounted to full 57 per cent of their entire value. But referring tor the present only to the op eration of the dutv, it is plain that it mutt linvebeeti paid before the woollens could be brought to market; and as thev were impor ted in considerable quantities, notwithstan ding its imposition, it la further plain, as has been previously remarked, that if it had been lowered or repealed, their price would have been proportionally diminished. But this is not the onlv fall that would have been oc casioned by the reduction of the duties. The woollens manufactured in the United States sold in the market along with the foreign woollens charged with the duty of 38 per cent: and it is certain thnt thev did not. Quality for quality, aell cheaper; for had they done *>? foreign woollens would neither have been bought nor imported. On the whole, therefore, Tt is undeniable that the duty under the late tariff a?ldcd 3ft per cent, to to the cost of the whole woollens consumed In the republic, or made 27,360, 000 of the 72,000,000 of dollars,Iwhich their aggregate value was suppose to amount to. I'lie value of the annual imports of wool lens amounted under the tariff of 1824, to alnnit ?9,000,000. The gins* amount of du ty on this importation amount to ?3,420,000, by deducting this sum from the ?27,360,000, which is the duty lidded to the eost ot the woollens consumed in the U. States, the t>nl nncc of ?23,940,000 Is the net amount of the bounty, or btnut, which the American pub lic were obliged to pay to their countrymen engaged in the woollon manufacture to en able them to prosecute their busluess. (lie port, p. 19.) And yet it appears, by the confession of the manufacturers themselves that this immenie 6onut has been quite in adequate for their support, lis nny country not blessed with a legislature thoroughly emhued with a love ot nil the contradictions and absurdities of the m?rcantile system, such a confession would have bren reckon ed equivalent ton declaration thnt the pros engaging o?i nny thing like equal a successful competition with for the woollen nmnufacturr, Was as ra cqui?an pectlof ei trrpKjfcin a either* In ?sz yet Rhoctthtr fblomrr, And that thepro (fitkn that hart already been M M?My given to th? manufacturers ought cradaally withdrawn. ButCei BjfcrilUy, They determined nhcturer should he supported, might be the coat.?There was more, how ever, of apparent, than of real generosity, ia thle eoftductt for, ae wo have si read v mo, p;~perto upporting IM lower and middle classes, luiviag considerately discriminated the dotiea laid on the article* consumed by their own rosfe. ? Besides the etatementa intlto Report of the Boston Committee, on which the previous remarks are chiefly founded, we may observe that a precisely similar view of the question is taken in the Report of a Committee of the House of Representatives appointed t<> in quire Into the state of the financc*. The policy of the uew tariff then under compiler atlon, was fully and ably discuwd, and strongly condemned by this committee. They state, that in their apprehcn*ion, the effect of the proposed (now enactcd) tariff, will be, to take millions from the income of the planting, agricultural, commercial nnd shipping interests, to add hundreds of thou* sands to the income of the manufacturers and and wool-growers?" In a word, thnt the contrmfitated prohibitory dm lei v/Ut dj.s TROV TKN TIMKS AS MUCK WKALTH AS THKY WILL CaKATK."* But the A met lean legislature have not been satisfied with attempting to bolster up | the woollen manufacture. They have made equally strenuous effoits to establish the cot ton manufacture, which have been crowned with almost equal success. On the coarser dc*cr{ptinn of cotton fsbrlct, costing from 8 to 15cents a yard, the duty under the tariff of 1824, was as high as 7k cents, being from about 50 to 80 per cent ad valorem; on other fabrics, costing from 15 to 20 cents the duty varied from 38 to 50 per cent, and on the more c<?tly fabrics it amounted to 38 percent. Such an extraordinary degree of protecticn coald not fail to divert a comiider nble quantity of capital and labor to the manufacture of cottons; hut instead of being of any advantage, every cotton-mill that hut heen hiillt under this system, is nn evidence of the folly of government, nod of the ml*em plnymcnt of ho mm h capital. Withdraw thepiotection?that Is prevent the public from being taxed for the uke of tempting cotton spinner* and manufacturers to eru-, bark in a disadvantageous business, nnd the j utter umiihilation of these establishments > would follow nn a matter of course. The' manufacturers derive no part of their subsi<? trnce from theii own industry or ingenuity; they derive It wholly from the monopoly which they posscwof the home market, nnd which enables them to nut their hands into the pocket* of their neighbors. This is what the'American system' rrcally amounts to; and we can truly say, that we do not envy our Transatlantic friends the advantages of which it can be productive It appears from the Keport of the Boston Committee, that notwithstanding the impo sition of the exorbitant duties now alluded to, cottons, which sold for about IB millions of dollar*, were impmtcd into the United States in 1826. Pag* 24.) And yet, in the teeth of these facts, it is said by the advo> cates of the restrictive system, that4 Ameri ca Is not only supplied, hut overflowing with cotton manufactures; the producc of her ownlabor.'??4The goo.ls made br our own mills,' it is st?tcd in a paper published by J the Harrisburg Convention,f 4 are the CHEAPKST AND DKST IN THK WORLD. The)' have driven like British good* out of every market accessahle to us ns to them, though our great rival attempted to rownlerjelt our i good* in numerous instances, to dcccive the j people of Mexico and South America. Some ? small parcels of ourgoods were smuggledin to England and tola with a good firofii /f American cottons would drive the like Brit* ish or India goods nut of Calcutta, were their importation thereat Iil>erally allowed. There U nothing bat tober truth In these statements; but how wonderful (wonderful truly?) are the chunges that have taken place. % In our ignorance, we long imagined that John Bull had been the most guillible of nnimals; but if Jonathan can swallow such assertions as thrie, John has not the vestige of a claim to that distinction. Smuggle Ame rican cottons into (?. Britain* What uti opin* ion must the llnrrishurgh delegate* have formed of their countrymen, when they could presume to call such a statement a 4sober ? ruth'! Is there a merchant in the I . State* vi profoundly ignorant, a* not to know tluit American and all other foreign cotton*, may be freelv imported into our market* on iiaytog an ad valorem duty of tkn per cent l.et us now see how they arc driving our cotton* out of foreign markets. In 1B2A, the estimated official value of the whole ex* port< from the United States amounted to 77,50.1,322 dollars, ot width coarse cotton good* of domestic manufacture amounted to I,I3H,12S dollars; ami ot those, 711,dol lar* worth weic sent to Meairo aud South America. Now, it approi * from the official accounts of our custom-house, that the val ue of our exports of cotton goods only, in 1B2.7, amounted to .i0,7W,000l, oratioul 150. 000,000 dollars; and there are good ground* for thinking, thut the value of those ex|K>? i ed to Mexico and South America exceed ?l 2S,0#0,00o dollars; so that the American exjmrt* to those counti lus, scan j of which ? l'*pers relative to Smnt'wan Tariffs, |>riote?l hy onltr nl lh<t ||??im* U (%>!nm?tis, p <HH. ? C.HMWlinj ofili kjfii'f t f??? all |t?rts ??f th? t'tiiou (ri?n>Uy lo l!ie er.er?u? ofd??HM tl? inJuilry ? t?i? y met .it llamtlu'gli JOth July. inv7. t Pa|?n reUtlvi t?lh? t?riflf?, prin ted bj order of the llomn ?/.'Itunuaou*, p. Ju7. in their immediate neighbor s, Amount to about tew-jAlrrf* per cent, of our own) A Marvelous progress, certainly, towards ?ufifilmntlng the Dritieh in ail foreign mar But the truth is, that this I* setting the progress mode by the Americans in a much too favourable point of view. 'It is well known/ says the Boaton Committee, which, K will be observed, consisted wholly of mer chant* and practical men, that in such a various and extensive trad# as we carrv on, there are many markets where ??tied car goes are required, and they must be made up of both foreign and domestic roods, even though they may com more thanio the coun try where these or similar articles, are pro duced. / x evidence U this, we re-expo rt ed, in USA, of European linens, imported at a cost of from 15 to 30 per cent, to the a mount of 2,433,625 dollars; yet no one ac quainted with trade would infer from that our ability to undersell the aame articles go ing direct from the places where they are made, to the mnrkets to which we export them. This is now the case, and always has been, with many of the articles which we import from nil quarters of the world.? But our re-exportation of cotton goods will i he more to the point. From the custom house returns, the committee And, that the t'Xpott of foreign cotton goods, principally lor nil British, tor 1825, amounted to 1,810, ' 51)1 dollars, ot which 1,100,214 dollars, went to Mexico nnd different i>orts in 8. Amerl* ca; nnd that in 1826, the export wai 1.714,1 788 dollars, of which 901,849 dollars went to I the same places, besides the shipments thnt went direct from Ruro|>e to these countries. We think this is a ju&t view of the caw?nnd such n* will convince every reasonable man that no satisfactory evidence has Urn fur nished to bhow that we can undersell the British in any market; Indeed nothing can I he more absnid than to pretend that we can while we levy a duty ot from 50 to 90 per cent, on those very goods in which we most excel, in order to keep British ccttoiut out of our mnrkets, and wnich is still to be in creased if the manufacturers prevail.*? Page 26. Tlu: same system of forcing has been ap plied to Almost every ?ort of manufacture; and it would ftcem that ecutt gui coute it is lo be persevered in. It* advocate* huvc pro claimed that 'the principle of ttte ti.i iff it to ennble each article manufactured at home to sustain a competition with the unme ar ticle when imported.*?'Wc/ it wan said in Congress, 'want protection; and It ma/?rr? no/ whether it be JO or ISU/icr cent. ?o long at it In protection.' Kntcrtainmg such views we think Congress would do wall to prohibit foreign commerce altogether; to niuke it as the Spaniard* did in South America,a capital . offence to carry on any sort of intercourse with foreigners. If their system of prohi bitions and restrictions could take cfleet, it would destroy the foreign trade of the re public as eflccturtlly as if her territories were suuoundcd by Bishop Berkley's wail of brass. We observe that very great stress is gen erally laid by the speakers in Congrcs*, and the writers out of doors, favorable to the "American system" on the alleged indispo sition of the European powers, mid particu larly of Great Britain, to import the staple productions of America. We are a< cu*ed of acting with inconceivable rapacity, illiberal ity, and so forth. We are salti to have ex cluded almost every sort of Transatlantic produce from our matkets. The injury done the Union by our com laws it pamco laily dwelt uponi and they are triumphant refei red to as showing that we are zealous ly attached to the prohibitive system. It is alleged, that the recent changes in some de partments of our roinmen in I legist-tl. in have been of no material consequence, and that they were really intended only tr deceive foreigners, ami make them enter into luiu ouscummervial treaties with us. There is, however, agrit deil < f false hood and exaggeration hi these statements. With rcspeet, indeed, to the corn laws, it is perhaps unnecessary for us to sav that we are quite as hostile to them as any foreigner, whether an American or a Pole, can possi bly be. Wc look upon thrm .?s decidedly opposed to all our best interests; as o< cation iug the misemploy tlteiit of a large amount of cupital and industry; as multiplying, at one and the same time, the chances, not only of famine, but also of gluts; und ai tending, by raising the avernge price of food, and, conse quently, the rate of waves, to an artificial elevation, to depress the rate of profit, and cause the transference of capital to other countries. All, therefore, that can be sakl even by the llarrisburg dclogate*, in vltu- j perntion of '.he com law*, will be assented' to by us. We are enemies of prohibitions and restrictions, not because they have In-sn enacted by arlnrociit*, autocrat*, or demo crats?by England, Austria, or Amcrica, hut because we are thonuighly convinced that they are in the Ust d?*gret? inimical to the real wealth and permanent Improvement of every nation by whom they aro adopted. It is needless, therefore, to t. II us that Kng laud has acted, and is, in this instance, still acting, upon that scry sy.d? u if policy, which we condemn. Wc admit, a.id l.um-nt the fact. At the samr, time, however, wc aro gratified in thinking tha: :? very great progress indeed has been already made, notwithstanding the statements to the con trary by the Ameii-on writers andspeakers, in the w?y to -t .?e'tei system. But why should Jonathan, who is so very sharp-sighted illotb.-r plain practical ques tions, be so veiy blind in tins' He sees clcurly enough tnat the corn I ?w% operate as a heavy tax mi tlic count.acts of corn in this country, of v>hich a small j?n.-t only finds it? w i) into th?! pockfts of the landlords, the r.'tt being wasted iitlu hesvy cxpens** at tending tuo tillage of the ja.-or v?dr, which we aro, tlirou|)i the agoncy of these laws, compelled to cultivate. Jonathan has th? moat perfect comprehension of all this, and can descant, In good set phrases, on It* Im policy and absurdity?Aud yet, with aa Irish sort of consistency, he sets about doing the very same thing himself that he so londlv condmns In usl He sees that the English might import corn from abroad tor a half, or perhaps a third, of what K takes to ralee it on the worst lands now in tillage} and uot to be behind us in wisdom, he hastens to lay prohibitory duties on foreign woollens, cot ton*, hardware glass, sugar, fee. that he mav have the pleasure of paying twice as much for these articles as he might otherwise ob tain them for, and thus be on a level with the English! After this who will presume to say that John Bull Is the greatest goose In the world? Had he beeu In Jonathan^ Klacc, and no longer kept In leading strings y the Nvwcastles, Kcnyons, flee, we bcllewj he would have said, that the line of conduct followed by the British government, with Hespect to the trade in corn, ought to be avoided, not followed; and that it was clear ly fot his interest to buy his woollens, cottons and hardware, wherever ho could get them cheapest, whatever the English might | do. It is quite a mistake to sflirm, ns Mr. Otis and other advocates of the tariff have done, that we import simost nothing thit the Americans produce. It appears from the American custom house report, that the es timated value of the domestic produce, ex ported from the Unitcil States amounted, in 1835, to 66,944,745 dollars; and of this, no less thnn 40,372,907 dollars worth was sent to Great Uritain and her colonies; 35,043. 466 dollur* worth being exported direct to Great Britain. Well and truly therefore might the merchants of Boston say in their Hi-port, that 'Whatever view wc take of the trade with Great llritain, it will be found to btrqualin value to two Tiiiausnr AtL tmk commf.rck which wc carry on wUh the re maining fiartt e/ifit whole world', but it will b*> impossible tor us to retain more than a portion of what we now enjoy, if the sys tem wc are opposing should* prevail.'?P. 12T.ll There cannr>t be a question, indeed, that the commercc with (treat Britain is of the utmott consequence tn the Americans, and that wo deal with them on infinitely more liberal term* than they deal with mm. We annually import more than 125 million* of pound* weight of American cotton, charging it only with a duty of tlx per cent. Our supplies of tobacco '-.re prinripally imported from America;and though it ischarged with a heavy duty of 3-. a pound, that duty it imposed solely for the sake of revenue, and certainly with no view tochcck the consump tion of an American product, in order to en* courage the use of one raited at hoane.~ W'ith the exception, indeed, of ashes and rice, no articlc* brought from America pay a protecting duty; ami on the majority of the American articles wc import, the duties dn not, at an average, exceed eight per cent ad valorem. But there is not, at wc have al ready teen, any reciprocity ?n tho proceed ing* of the Americans, f hey charge our wollen goods with a duty of from 45 to 90 percent; cottons with a du?v of from 30 to 100 per cent, iron bolts and bar-ircn with a duty 71.17s. per ton, and so on. It would he well, therefore, if, in future discussions of this matter, the advocates and eulogists ot the *American tystem' were to lay some what lest stress on our 'cupidity'and Mine rality.' Whatever may be our defects In that way, it docs not rcujly seem that the Americans have any very peculiar right to rcproaeh us with inem. It is true, that it is our own interest we have in view in admitting Ameiican raw cotton ami other products, at inmpaiatlvely low duties. Nor do we object to the A me* i icans that they act on this principle; for ho nation ever act* on any other. What wc ob ject to in their conduct i % that they mistake wherein their ?*? inteicit really lies; and that their prohibit tons ami restrictions, by narrowing the held of commercial cntci prUe are a public and general nuisance; though It in certain that they arc infinitely mote in jurious to themselves than to any other people. On heaiing the terms in whirh some of the leading Ameiican orators talk ubrtil the mischitf* arising from tho balance of trade being unfa* ounihlc to the ;epublir. and the consequent exportation of specie, <>ne is al most tempted to believe m the doctrine of the mvtempnyt.il' si% nnd to conclude that tho Hoses, the KenyoiiM, and the Lauder dales of a former age, are agam revived III the Baldwins, the Lawrences, and the Ever ett* of the present. It is difficult to argue with those who, at this time of day, can talk seriously about the balance of trade.? To say that tlieohl doctrine with respect to it has been a thousand times shown to be false, contradictory, and nhsurd, It not e nough. The (act >s, that tho very reverse; of it is true; and that every nation carryingj on an advantageous foreign commerce must impoit more than ?he exports, and must therefore, according to the transatlantic illu niiiixti, It.v?! the balance against h>*r. But in dt spile of tlin speeches of honourable gentlemen, and tho innumrruble essays of Mr. Carey, wc apprehend that Jot.athan it not quite so simple a* to export any com modity, except in the view of itupoi ting a more valuable otic in its stead. It is this greater value thai corstitui'-s toe |>r?>fiuo| the merehantif engaged in the forci??? trade ami to affirat that it is large, is to affirm, what is not rcrkriieda very serious evil on this sale the Atlantic, whatever it maybe | lit |!l-27 till rslus of tho fX|v.r!? /mm th* Matted BtaMt to Great llnNln sikI Iter tl< pen *t?>neW? amounted In .TtyiTtWl? ?'?dlnr?, ??l which flt,t97402 Jbltsrt worth west iMrcct to Urnl Brits'a. on the other, that the external trade of the country k very lucrative. It wenld, however, he tmjMt to Individual member* of the Amerknn Legislature to npitwrt them m all. approving the explo ded and ahounl notions with regard to the balance of trade. Mr CambreTeng, In an able pamphlet, entitled an Examination ef the Tariff proposed In 1821, forcibly expos ed .he fallacy of the opinion of tnoee who believe, In the pernkkua effect of what n called an nnmveurabte balance. Mr. Web mr. too, In an ndmirable speech on the tar iff bill ot 1824, ait the real nntnre ef com merce, and the tree doctrine as to the bal ance, In the clearest point of view. Mr. Webster illustrated hie statement by n ense whkh, although it failed to make any im pression on the ssajority of hk auditors, ie en very conclusive, that ve believe It will carry conviction to every one who may happen to throw hk eye over them page*. *' Some time aince," mid Mr. Webster, "a ahip left one ofthe towns of New-England, having nit hoard fO.OOO dollars in specie. She pro ceeded to Mocha, on the Red See, and there laid out these dollars on coibe, drugs, apices flee. With thit new cargo she proceeded to Europe; two thirds of it were sold In Hoi* land for 130,000 dollar*, which the ship brought bach and placed in the vaults el thn aatne bank whence she had taken her ori ginal outfit; the other third was sent to the potts of the Mediterancsn, end produced a return of 25,000 dollars, in speck, and 15,000 doUars in Italisn merchandise. These Mima together make 170,000 dollars imported, wbkh is W.000 dollars more than were ex ported; orms, therefore, according to the doctrine of honorable gentlemen on tho other aide, an unfavorable balance to thst amount." Rut honorable gentlemen were proof against ?hU reduclto ad abturdvm? I'hey coati ted firm in their belief, that tho doctrine of the balance was ao chimrrs, ami that the adventure decribed by Mr. Webster waa a losing use, Some members of the American Legisla ture, who advocate the protecting system, and of the purity of whose motives no duubt can be entertained, seem to lay a great deal of stress on the assumed ptinciplr, that no people can truly be said to be independent, if they are indebted to foreigners fm supplies of any commodity of very great utility.?. There is some apparent, but no rent founda tion for this opinion. The fallacy lie* in at tnchlng an rrmvrous meaning to theteim independent. No one would rctkon a pil vate fjtntleuian, who had hl? clothes, hat?, shoes, icc. made in his own house, as In any respect moie independent than one who hail money enough to buy them of the tailors, hatters, shoemakers, and other tradesmen. The same 1* the case with nations. Each, by applying itself in preference to these pur suits lor which it has some peculiar aptitude will be able to obtain a greater command over the necessaries and conveniences of lifc through the intervention of an exchange, and wilt, consequently, be richer, and conse quently more truly indrfitndent, than if it nad directly produced the varies articles for which it has a demand. In commerce, equivalents are always given for cqivalcnts; so that there can be no dependence, in tho vulgar acceptation of the term. The Ameri cans, It is true, have on one or two occasion* experienced a scarcity of foreign manufac tured goods i but this was a consequent*- of their ovm ftotky, of their non-lmportutiou acta, and not of the prohibitive regulations of any foreign power, They may rest as fureo, that no manufacturing nati'M will ever refute to teli. No such circumstance has ever yet occurred; and it may be safely affirmed that it never wili. The danger that the American statesman would provide against is therefore altogether imaginary.? Tho independence at whteh they aspire, i* the Independence of those who swim acrou the river that they may owe nothing to the brklge. We have hitherto argued this question, on the a<*omption that the provisions of the tariff miijht be carried into effecti but thia seems to be quite out of the question. The irri-at corrector of vicious, commercial, and financial legislation, the amuggler, will prove too powerful for the custom-house officers. The va?t extent of tho American frontier, and tin facilities it affords for tht clandes tine impoi tat ion of foreign good*, present insuperable obstacles, to the succcssof the mad attempt in which the government haa embarked. We have no idea, indeed, that our exports to the United States will be ma terially diminished by the new tariff. Free access to Canada will afford our merchants so many I icilitie* for smuggling, that unless the Americans place a tustom-house officer in every bush, and station a gun-bo?t In cverv cr*ek, it will not be in their power to prevent the Introduction of product*. The American Legislature will not, thete fore, he id>lcv do w hat it will, to establish the finer tranches of manufacture within the union. It may carry the protecting du ties from 1CU to 500 or 1000 percent) it will only l>e so much additional premium to the clandestine trader. The injury will fall heavily on the Americans themselves} but will he comparatively little fslt by the fo reigner. Instead of reaping a large reve nue from moderate custom duties they will ompty the public t <ffirs of the state to fill thepneketsof the smunleri instead of hav| Ing the population no their frontier engaged in clearh?,< off l*nd, and in extending the em pire of civilisation, they will imb|te them with predatory ami ferocious habits, and leach them to defy the laws, and to place their hopes of rising in tho world, not In the laborious occupations of agriculture, but In sehemee to defraud the public, revenue. Commerce will he diverted from Its natural and wholesome channels) and Instead of be ing one of the most pr*4uetive sources of wealth nnd civilization it will become, under