sugar can be produced in Jamaica for three cents a pound, while its production in Louisiana must cost six cents, then it is the duty of our government to lay an impost of three cents on the imported article. This statement does no sort of justice to our views. We have never contended that because the production of any given article costs more in our country than elsewhere, it should therefore be protected, or that all articles, which might be produced here, though at a greater cost than elsewhere, should be made the subject of protecting duties. What we contend for, as I have already shown, is the protection of such producing interests as give assurance or reasonable promise of ultimate perfection and thrift among us, though unable to withstand, in their infancy, the competition of the older and stronger rival interests of other countries. We contend that it may be and is necessary to countervail, generally, the high imposts of other nations, or suffer the embarrassment, depression, and evil, to which a heavy and always augmenting balance of trade against us-in other words, a crippling foreign debt-must subject us. I think sugar may be produced nearly or quite as cheap in Louisiana as in Jamaica. I would, therefore, protect the sugar interest of the former; but if a fair trial prove this belief to be mistaken, and Jamaica is willing to reciprocate a free trade, I would take off the duty and buy sugar of her. But if she, while abun dantly willing to supply us with sugar, shall refuse to take our flour, our timber, and our products generally, in payment, but insist on having the free trade all one side, I would say to her-" Hold! We shall tax your sugar out of our markets, until you take our productions in return.". And, Mr. Editor, you would find that my policy would secure a nearer approach to absolute "free trade" than that of my opponent. You do not always secure immunity in this selfish world by proclaiming to every one your meekness and non-resistance to injustice and imposition.

My opponent's assertion, that protective duties are unjust and oppressive, would have more plausibility if only one interest were protected, and that for the sake of that interest alone. But the reverse, in both points, is notoriously the truth. And any man, who has seen what these eyes have closely observed of the effect of protecting the manufacturing interest, for instance, upon the prosperity of all other productive interests within the sphere of manufacturing operations, can only regard such sweeping assertions as the melancholy evidences of a wandering from the paths of practical knowledge in the erratic pursuit of air-spun theories.

"Free Trade" objects to protection, that "it offers a bounty to smuggling and fraud." This objection, so far as it has any weight, not only applies to all imposts, but to all taxation whatever. Tax gold watches heavily, and the owners will often conceal them to evade the payment. Tax real estate, and land-owners will sometimes resort to artifice and knavery to have it undervalued in the assessment. Nay, more: the legal appraisers of a particular district or county will sometimes systematically appraise too low, in order that their friends and neighbors shall bear a smaller proportion of the general burdens. My opinion decidedly is, that customs afford the very cheapest, most equitable, least onerous, and least demoralizing mode of taxation that can be devised; that, though they may give rise to greater rogueries, they make infinitely fewer rogues than a more direct and compulsory imposition of national burdens. Yet, I am ready to admit, that imposts may be so exorbitantly high as to tempt to systematic smuggling,' which is a serious evil. But is not the preva

lence of this evil exaggerated? Probably the average impost on American tobacco throughout Europe exceeds five hundred per cent; and what proportion of it is smuggled? I think not a twentieth. But so long as the advocates of protection in this country do not ask for any duties exceeding thirty per cent, I submit that this argument of my opponent lacks force.

Of the truth of the general proposition that judicious protection increases production, I fear I shall not convince my antagonist. Yet I think I should have no difficulty in convincing ninety-nine out of every hundred individuals of good sense who had formed no opinions on the subject. To do this, I should begin by exhibiting a statement of the annual products of the protected industry of England as compared with those of an equal population in any "free trade" country. I would then present the present annual products of Massachusetts with those of any community of equal numbers whose great producing interests have never received legislative or other equivalent protection. I would compare them also with what they were from 1816 to 1824, under a comparatively "free trade" system. From these and similar premises I should endeavor to convince the tribunal that a community pursuing many different branches of industry, espe cially such as minister to its own wants and necessities, will produce much more, and grow rich faster, than one which confines its exertions mainly to the production of one or two great staples. One principal reason of this is the comparatively great cost and disadvantage at which a community which purchases most articles of its domestic consumption must always procure them: if a farmer bought and paid for the products which he consumes, he would generally fall behind at the end of the year. But a still greater disadvantage under which the community which is confined to the production of one or two staples must ever labor, is the inability to employ all its industry. In no country, probably, is the aggregate product of its labor one half what it might be if all hands were fully employed and all efforts wisely directed. In my view; the great end of all political economy is to provide each individual constantly with the employment best suited to his capacities, and secure to him an adequate reward. New England has greatly profited by her manufactures, mainly from the amount of female and juvenile labor, before nearly or wholly unproductive, which it has enabled her to turn to good account. If some philanthropist could devise a new branch of industry, which would give agreeable and permanent em ployment to the twenty thousand idle and suffering females of this city, and enable them to earn fifty cents each a day, he would be a greater public benefactor than Adam Smith or a regiment of Condy Raguets. I know that Maine was for a long period almost entirely a lumbering and fishing district, and that she was then a proverb through New England for poverty and thriftlessness. I know that, since she has greatly diversified her avocations, she has rapidly increased in wealth and prosperity. I have full confidence that the growth of two millions of bushels of wheat in 1838 did not subtract to nearly an equal amount from her other products. I have no doubt that an adequate protective duty on foreign silks would lead in a few years to the production of twenty millions' worth per annum in our own country, and this without subtracting ten millions' worth from the aggregate which would otherwise be produced, because the labor of women, children, aged and infirm persons, not now productive, would to a great extent be employed in this new pursuit. I say I'am confident that I could

demonstrate these truths to the satisfaction of nearly every unprejudiced person; but I am not at all confident of satisfying my opponent.

My opponent argues, that if we produce cotton at nine cents a pound, we could monopolize the market of the world at eight, while at ten we should be driven quite out of it. I do not admit that protection increases the general cost of home products, but the assumption above stated is flatly contradicted by notorious facts. During the last five years, the price of American cotton has ranged from six to eighteen cents a pound, with scarcely a perceptible effect on the amount required for foreign consump

tion.

But, in truth, I perceive he labors under the fundamental error of supposing that protection is only required to raise the price of the domestic product, and would otherwise be useless. This he directly asserts on page 236. But that this is very far from the truth, I will stop a few minutes to demonstrate. I will suppose that broadcloths, for example, can be produced at precisely equal cost in France and England. But France becomes a convert to "free trade," and abolishes all duties on imports, while England adheres to "protection," and taxes French cloths fifty per cent. Now the practical operation of this conflicting legislation will be, that the English manufacturers will enjoy the exclusive market of their own country, and divide that of the rival nation. They can keep the home market pretty uniformly good; and whenever, from any cause, there occurs a glut and a stagnation, they will ship all their surplus stock to France, rattle it off at auctions immediately, (better lose twenty-five per cent on it than depress the home market,) and thus restore a quick demand, good prices, nay, a temporary scarcity, in England, whenever they desire it. Three weeks will repay their losses on the quantity exported. But where will be the French manufacturers? Bankrupt--ruined beyond hope. Struggling before against a glutted market, and with difficulty maintaining prices, the heavy British importation and forced sale at once knocks every thing down fifty per cent, and in fact stops sales altogether. They cannot retaliate; the wretched policy of their government invites and insures a repetition of the attack on the very first recurrence of a plethora in Eng. land, and they are powerless to resist it. Their utter ruin is as certain as the destruction of a band of men which goes out naked and weaponless to battle with an equal number armed with muskets and bayonets. Twenty years will finish them utterly, and transfer their business to the hands of their rivals.

I have a right to be surprised that my opponent should argue that our great interests were not unusually prosperous from 1824 to 1834, because our exports per man were greater in nominal value from 1798 to 1808. Who does not know that the latter-named period was one of general and tremendous war in Europe, when our products were in great demand, and commanded extraordinary prices? I do not by any means admit that the exports of a nation afford any reliable criterion of its production or prosperity; but if they did, we must consider circumstances and prices far more than the mere money value.

My opponent's concluding flourish, eulogistic of "freedom, unrestricted freedom," I must be content to admire without attempting to imitate it. It would certainly have delighted me more extravagantly if it had been apposite to the subject matter. But it is precisely as much to the purpose as a non-resistant's eulogium on the blessings of Peace, and his denuncia

tion of the horrors of War. To the enthusiast I make answer, "Your doctrines are very good so far as they regard the intercourse of men gov. erned by your spirit: but the world is full of formidable evil: may I not resist it? If a pirate attack my vessel, shall I not defend her if I can, especially if all I hold dear are involved: If an army invade us with fire and sword, may we not repel them? Allow me to love peace as well as you, without proclaiming in advance my willingness to submit meekly to every injury, and thus inviting aggression." So I say to my opponent, Will our abolishing all our own protective measures, give us free trade with the world? Will Great Britain abolish her protective duties because we have done so? You know she will not. If she ever does it at all, she will be induced to do it by opposite measures and considerations. Then why call this one-sided reciprocity-this casting of our own interest, bound, at the feet of our great rival, by the abused name of "Free Trade ?" A cause intrinsically solid would not need the aid of so gross a perversion.

ART. IV. COINS, WEIGHTS, AND MEASURES.

PROPOSED CHANGE IN WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND MONEYS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

Ir may not be generally known, that a body of learned men in Great Britain have been engaged for some years in the "Commission" of devising a more simple and convenient system of weights, measures, and moneys; and as the question is one of deep importance to our own country, it may not be amiss to prepare our readers with a few observations anticipatory to the forthcoming "Report."

In two countries like Great Britain and the United States, which stand first in point of commerce in the known world, it can but be looked upon as a reproach that twenty-seven years of peace should have been suffered to elapse without this great desideratum having been accomplished, except in some trivial particulars; and the more so, as France had, at the earlier date of her Republic, proved to us its practicability and advantages. The subject, however, presents so many embarrassments for ingenuity to exercise itself upon, that it is difficult to bring a body of mathematicians to the same conclusion, in consequence of their not being able to agree to start from the same point. Napoleon, in the latter respect, was more favorably circumstanced-for he was not only a clear-headed mathematician himself, and therefore capable of judging of the matter, but when he had come to a conclusion, his power was sufficiently strong to carry out his views without resistance, even if his name had not been enough to recommend them as infallible. In England and this country, on the contrary, no government could pretend to the despotic control, even if it possessed the requisite attainments, necessary to originate and enforce a change. It is a subject alike out of the sphere of the legislatures and executives, who are, therefore, compelled to devolve its consideration upon some other competent deliberate body, and, as to each member of such a body, his own ideas naturally appear the most simple and efficacious, years are consumed in the work of mutual conversion, before they can agree upon the basis whereon their superstructure of practical calculations is to be raised.

There are many who think that any alteration of established weights, measures, or coins, must be injurious, whatever may be the abstract merit of the proposed innovation; and there are others who doubt the practicability of introducing any changes without a long period of confusion, and the conquest of a large force of resistance. This may be true to a certain extent; but when shall we be better prepared for a change? It can be nothing more than a trivial sacrifice on the part of some of the present generation for the benefit of their successors. One thing, however, should be borne in mind, that is, whatever system of weights and measures Great Britain may choose to devise, it will be highly important for us to adopt, in consequence of the intimate connection of the commerce of the two countries. In this respect, it is desirable that the fundamental bases of the weights, measures, and coins of all the countries with which we have commercial intercourse, should be the same; but this could not be done without producing, for a long period, confusion, injustice, and error.

The great desideratum in establishing a new system of weights, measures, and coins, is, that the quantity and the money should be subdivided in the same way, that is, reduced to the same notation; and the best notation for the purpose is, of course, that which is the common base of arithmetic nearly all over the world, namely, the decimal-a scale which, as it ascends from units to tens, hundreds, and thousands, so also descends to tenth, hundredth, thousandth parts, &c. Such a system, both as regards their weights and measures, and their coins, has been successfully carried into practice in France and Netherlands, and as far as the coins are concerned, in the United States. With such a general notation, the keeping of commercial accounts would require nothing but the expeditious process of common addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Suppose, for example, that the pound in weight, and the pound, or dollar, in money, were both subdivided into tenths, hundredths, and thousandth parts, (call them if you please, dimes, cents, and mills,*) then five pounds, six dimes, three cents, and four mills, in weight, would be expressed by 5.634 lbs., and the value, in money, at two pounds, six dimes, eight cents, four mills, or £2.684 per lb. avoirdupois would be arrived at by merely multiplying the two expressions together, producing £15.122. This example is an extreme one, and is only given for illustration. Indeed, those who are familiar with the facilities of decimal arithmetic, we trust will not accuse us of exaggeration in saying, that if the weights, measures, and moneys of the two countries, were brought under that notation, any one moderately expert in simple multiplication and division, might acquire a proficiency in making up accounts, invoices, &c. in a few hours. Under the present system, years are spent in the earlier part of life in learning rules" by heart," which are seldom long remembered; and acquiring a knowledge of formula which are still more seldom understood, almost every one being compelled, in after years, to supply himself with what his tutor failed to impress upon his memory, by a sort of mental arithmetic of his own. By substituting the decimal system, this would be entirely done away with. Instead of the tutor wanting an assistant," the pupil, as far as the arithmetic of the shop and the merchant's countinghouse is concerned, would have but little need of assistance; and, as the groundwork of commercial knowledge would thus require less time and talent, those intended for

66

* We learn that some such nomenclature as this will be proposed in the Report.