Abbildungen der Seite

than since the abrogation of the corn laws. Why should they not be? The demand for their products in the United States has greatly increased, while the reduction of price, through which alone this increase of demand could have been effected, has really taken place, not through the English manufacturers receiving less for their goods, but through our own modification of our tariff. We have thereby just thrown away the benefit that would naturally have accrued to us from the increased English demand for our provisions, and we have nearly crushed our own manufactures into the bargain.

We have now stated the doctrine of international values in the most precise manner, carefully analyzing each step of the process,

in order to show that there was no gap in the reasoning. But as the theory of the matter is necessarily complicated and abstruse, we will now state it over again in a more general way, in order to be more fully understood.

America produces chiefly raw material, because she has the advantages of a more extensive territory, and a more fertile soil; England produces chiefly manufactured goods, because she has the advantages of more capital, longer experience, and cheaper labor. (We must now use numbers and measures almost at random, for convenience of brief calculation; but any numbers and denominations will answer equally well to illustrate the principle with.) In consequence of their respective advantages, we will suppose that England must give the labor vested in ten pounds of manufactured goods for one hundred weight of raw material ; wbile the labor vested in six pounds of such goods would raise or buy one hundred weight of raw material in America. Now the doctrine of free trade, (which is in itself a perfectly sound and just doctrine if applied to two countries which are similarly situated in every respect, if applied in this case, would teach the Americans to give themselves exclusively to the production of raw material, and the English exclusively to manufactures, on the ground that each could purchase of the other what it would then need, more profitably than it could produce that article for itself. Let us suppose that the Americans adopt this advice, and raise nothing but raw material. What will be the consequence?

As every civilized nation must consume more value vested

[ocr errors]

in manufactured goods than in raw material, (without reckoning tea, coffee, and tropical products which must be brought from abroad,) it is evident that we must be constantly pressed to purchase from foreign countries more than we can easily pay for by selling to them raw material. In order, then, to enlarge the foreign market for our cotton, tobacco, and flour, — in order to bring them within the reach of a larger class of consumers,

- we must offer them on the most favorable terms. We must offer them at the American price, (of one hundred weight for six pounds of manufactures,) rather than at the foreign price, which they would otherwise naturally assume, of one hundred weight for ten pounds. At this last price, it may be assumed that we could dispose of only one thousand tons of the raw material; and for this amount we should procure only 200,000 pounds of manufactured goods ; – not enough to supply our wants. But in order to

; obtain more, we must be able to sell more ; and in order to sell more, we must offer the raw material at a lower price, so as to enable a greater number of foreigners to purchase it. If we offered it at the rate of six pounds to the hundred weight, we might be able to sell, not merely one thousand tons, but ten thousand; and this, at the price mentioned, would give us one million two hundred thousand pounds of manufactured goods, which might perhaps be sufficient. The principle is, then, that whichever nation is under the strongest temptation or necessity to buy from others, — whichever needs to buy more value than it can readily sell of its own products to pay for, that nation labors under a disadvantage in the traffic, and must offer its own commodities at the lowest possible price.

“At the lowest price which is possible,” we say; for the theory shows clearly that there are limits beyond which the price can neither be elevated nor depressed. We cannot sell for less than six pounds, because the · labor and capital expended in producing a hundred weight of raw material would, with all our disadvantages in manufacturing, enable us to manufacture six pounds of such goods for ourselves. Neither can we obtain more than ten pounds, because the English labor and capital bestowed on ten pounds of these goods would enable the English, in spite of their disadvantages in regard to raw produce, to raise one hundred weight VOL. LXXIII.


NO. 152.

of raw material for themselves. Within these limits, then, is the sphere of operation of a protective tariff; beyond them is the sphere of free trade. Prohibitory duties are always unwise; for the object is to check consumption, not to destroy foreign trade. The purpose of a protective tariff is to secure to each nation the use of its own natural advantages; or rather, to prevent it from throwing these natural advantages away by too assiduous and exclusive cultivation of them, the effect of which would be, that the other arts and branches of industry would perish by neglect. An analogy may here be traced between the true policy of a nation in developing all its resources, and the true system of education for cultivating all the mental faculties of a man. One faculty of a child, the memory or the imagination, may be developed by accidental circumstances to an inordinate extent. An unwise parent, like the injudicious partisans of free trade, would foster and enlarge this inequality instead of striving to diminish it; and would, thereby, not only leave the other faculties to die out by disuse, but would make the one talent preternaturally developed a curse rather than a blessing. A community cannot prosper by devoting all its energies to the cultivation of but one of the three great branches of industry. Devoted to agriculture alone, or to manufactures alone, or to commerce alone, it makes no difference ; — in either case, it will have but one class of articles to sell, while it will have two classes of articles to purchase ; — in either case, it will have a greater surplus of one kind to dispose of, than other nations will be willing or able to purchase, except at the lowest possible price ; — and to sell at the lowest possible price, as we have now demonstrated, is just to sacrifice the whole of the natural advantage with which we are endowed by nature, and to put ourselves on a par with other countries in this respect, while we are below them in every other respect.

On this point, the history of England is as full of instruction as that of our own country. The English peasantry have been driven away from their natural pursuits and mode of life in the fields, and have been forced to become operatives in the towns. English manufactures have thus been developed to a prodigious extent; and the consequence is, that England is importuning every government in the world to throw down its barriers of protection, and to receive manufactured goods at a marvellously cheap price, - a price much below their natural cost of production, if English labor were remunerated at a fair rate. But it is not thus remunerated; the wages of English operatives have, of late years, been reduced to the point where starvation is ever imminent; and bewildered by the lamentable consequences of this state of things, astonished to find general misery where their theory of free trade led them to expect general prosperity, the English economists have had recourse to such doctrines as those of Malthus and Ricardo to explain away the failure of their prognostications, and have actually discovered that all the evil must be attributed to an inevitable cause, — to the over population of the earth. What has been the fate of England in regard to manufactures may be our own condition in respect to agriculture, if we do not become wise in time.

That we are not here advocating a protective policy to an extent which will impeach the truth of all the leading doctrines of political economy, as that science is usually taught, must appear from the limitations of the theory which we have already laid down, and from the fact that this theory is frankly accepted even by those English economists who are the stoutest advocates of the general doctrine of free trade. For proof, we quote from John Stuart Mill.

“ If it be asked,” he says, “ what country draws to itself the greatest share of the advantages of any trade it carries on, the answer is, — the country for whose productions there is in other countries the greatest demand, and a demand the most susceptible of increase from additional cheapness. In so far as the productions of any country possess this property, the country obtains all foreign commodities at less cost. It gets its imports cheaper, the greater the intensity of the demand in foreign countries for its exports. It also gels its imports cheaper, the less the extent and intensity of its own demand for them. The market is cheapest to those whose demand is small. A country which desires few foreign productions, and only a limited quantity, while its own commodities are in great request in foreign countries, will obtain its limited imports at extremely small cost, – that is, in exchange for the produce of a very small quantity of its labor and capital.” Mill's Political Economy, vol. ii. p. 131.

Consequently, he argues, “the opening of a new branch of export trade; or an increase in the foreign demand for our products, either by the natural course of events, or by an abrogation of duties; or a check to our demand for foreign commodities by the laying on of import duties at home, or of export duties else. where ; — these, and all other events of similar tendency, would make our imports no longer a balance for our exports; and the countries which take our exports would be obliged to offer their commodities, (specie among the rest,) on cheaper terms, in order to reëstablish the equation of demand; and thus we should obtain money cheaper, and acquire a generally higher rate of prices. Incidents the reverse of these would produce effects the reverse, — would reduce prices." Ib. p. 145.

We borrow from another English authority a clear statement of the limitation under which alone the theory of free trade is applicable.

“ If all the countries of the globe were actually, or were ready to become, constituent portions of one and the same great family, the theory of the Free-traders might seem plausible. But the plain truth is, that the whole analogy is forced and unnatural. By treating the human race as one great family, we are not following, but departing from, the apparent design of Providence as indicated in the dispensations which everywhere present themselves to our observation. In these, we are totally unable to discover any trace of this ideal incorporation. Separated by natural and defined boundaries, often by broad tracts of ocean; differing even in physical organization ; inhabiting portions of the earth's surface varying in temperature from the fervid heat of the torrid zone to the almost unendurable cold of the arctic regions ; above all, absolutely unintelligible to each other by variety of language ; — the Deity seems to have stamped on the features of nature and of humanity in unmistakable characters that nations shall remain separate and distinct, each pursuing, under the restraints only of moral obligations and just laws, its own separate interests; and thus, in beautiful harmony with the similar arrangements among individuals of the same nation, each, however unconsciously, contributing to that general good which is but the aggregate of the separate good of its parts.” Quar. Review, No. clxxi. p. 86.

The situation of the United States is so peculiar that arguments drawn from European experience for the guidance of our conduct are apt to be wholly fallacious and unsound. We can more profitably go for a lesson to the other side of the habitable globe; - to a country even more widely separated than we are, by a waste of ocean, from the arts and

« ZurückWeiter »