understand a more profitable one. Profit is a plain word, that cannot be misunderstood. We have, to speak in round numbers, $20,000,000 of exports annually. To have the trade of exports on a good footing, means nothing more than to sell them dear; and, consequently, the trade of import on a good footing, is to buy cheap. To put them both on a better footing, is to sell dearer and to buy cheaper than we do at present. If the effect of the resolutions will be to cause our exports to be sold cheaper, and our imports to be bought dearer, our trade will suffer an injury.

It is hard to compute how great the injury would prove; for the first loss of value in the buying dear and selling cheap, is only the symptom and beginning of the evil, but by no means the measure of it. It will withdraw a great part of the nourishment that now supplies the wonderful growth of our industry and opulence. The difference may not amount to a great proportion of the price of the articles, but it may reach the greater part of the profit of the producer. It may have effects in this way, which will be of the worst kind, by discouraging the products of our land and industry. It is to this test I propose to bring the resolutions on the table, and if it shall clearly appear that they tend to cause our exports to be sold cheaper, and our imports to be bought dearer, they cannot escape condemnation. Whatever specious show of advantage may be given them, they deserve to be called aggravations of any real or supposed evils in our commercial system, and not remedies.

I have framed this statement of the question so as to comprehend the whole subject of debate, and at the same time I confess it was my design to exclude from consideration a number of topics which appear to me totally irrelevant to it.

The best answer to many assertions we have heard, is to admit them without proof. We are exhorted to assert our natural rights, to put trade on a respectable footing, to dictate terms of trade to other nations, to engage in a contest of self-denial, and by that, and by shifting our commerce from one country to another, to make our enemies feel the extent of our power. This language, as it respects the proper subject of discussion, means nothing, or what is worse. If our trade is already on a profitable footing, it is on a respectable one. Unless war be our object, it is useless to inquire, what are the dispositions of any Government with whose subjects our merchants deal to the best advantage. While they will smoke our tobacco, and eat our provisions, it is very immaterial, both to the consumer and the producer, what are the politics of the two countries, excepting so far as their quarrels may disturb the benefits of their mutual intercourse.

So far, therefore, as commerce is concerned, the inquiry is, have we a good market? The good or bad state of our actual market is the question. The actual market is everywhere more or less a restricted one, and the natural order of things is displaced by the artificial. Most nations, for reasons of which they alone are the rightful judges, have regulated and restricted their intercourse ac3d CoN.-12

[H. OF R.

cording to their views of safety and profit. We claim for ourselves the same right, as the acts in our statute book and the resolutions on the table evince, without holding ourselves accountable to any other nation whatever. The right which we properly claim, and which we properly exercise when we do it prudently and usefully for our nation, is as well established, and has been longer in use in the countries of which we complain, than in our own. If their right is as good as that of Congress to regulate and restrict, why do we talk of a strenuous exertion of our force, and by dictating terms to nations who are fancied to be physically dependent on America, to change the policy of nations? It may be very true, that their policy is very wise and good for themselves, but not as favorable for us as we would make it, if we could legislate for both sides of the Atlantic.

The extravagant despotism of this language accords very ill with our power to give it effect, or with the affectation of zeal for an unlimited freedom of commerce. Such a state of absolute freedom of commerce never did exist, and it is very much to be doubted whether it ever will. Were I invested with the trust to legislate for mankind, it is very probable the first act of my authority would be to throw all the restrictive and prohibitory laws of trade into the fire; the resolutions on the table would not be spared. But if I were to do so, it is probable I should have a quarrel on my hands, with every civilized nation. The Dutch would claim the monopoly of the spice trade, for which their ancestors passed their whole lives in warfare. The Spanish and Portuguese would be no less obstinate. If we calculate what Colony monopolies have cost in wealth, in suffering, and in crimes, we should say they were dearly purchased. The English would plead for their Navigation Act, not as a source of gain, but as an essential mean of securing their independence. So many interests would be disturbed, and so many lost, by a violent change from the existing, to an unknown order of things, and the mutual relations of nations, in respect to their power and wealth, would suffer such a shock, that the idea must be allowed to be perfectly Utopian and wild. But for this country to form the project of changing the policy of nations, and to begin the abolition of restrictions by restrictions of its own, is equally ridiculous and inconsistent.

Let every nation that is really disposed to extend the liberty of commerce, beware of rash and hasty schemes of prohibition. In the affairs of trade, as in most others, we make too many laws. We follow experience too little, and the visions of theorists a great deal too much. Instead of listening to discourses on what the market ought to be, and what the schemes, which always promise much on paper, pretend to make it, let us see what is the actual market for our exports and imports. This will bring vague assertions and sanguine opinions to the test of experience. That rage for theory and system, which would entangle even practical truth in the web of the brain, is the poison of public discussion. One fact is better than two systems.

H. OF. R.]

Commerce of the United States.

The terms on which our exports are received in the British market, have been accurately examined by a gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. WILLIAM SMITH.) Before his statement of facts was made to the committee, it was urged, and with no little warmth, that the system of England indicated her inveteracy towards this country, while that of France, springing from disinterested affection, constituted a claim for gratitude and self-denying measures of retribution.

Since that statement, however, that romantic style, which is so ill-adapted to the subject, has been changed. We hear it insinuated, that the comparison of the footing of our exports in the markets of France and England, is of no importance; that it is chiefly our object to see how we may assist and extend our commerce. This evasion of the force of the statement, or rather this indirect admission of its authority, establishes it. It will not be pretended that it has been shaken during the debate.

It has been made to appear, beyond contradiction, that the British market for our exports, taken in the aggregate, is a good one-that it is better than the French, and better than any we have, and, for many of our products, the only one.

The whole amount of our exports to the British Dominions in the year ending the 30th of September, 1790, was $9,246,660. But it will be more simple and satisfactory to confine the inquiry to the articles following: bread-stuff, tobacco, rice, wood, the produce of the fisheries, fish oil, pot and pearl ashes, salted meats, indigo, live animals, flaxseed, naval stores, and iron.

The amount of the before-mentioned articles exported in that same year to the British Dominions, was $8,457,173.

Mr. A. went into a consideration of the footing on which they are received. He then said, we have heard so much of restriction, of inimical and jealous prohibitions to cramp our trade, it is natural to scrutinize the British system, with the expectation of finding little besides the effects of her selfish and angry policy.

[JANUARY, 1794.

Great Britain, it has been clearly shown that she is a better customer for that article in Europe, than her neighbor, France. The latter, in ordinary times, is a poor customer for breadstuff, for the same reason that our own country is, because she produces it herself, and therefore France permits it to be imported, and the United States do the like. Great Britain often wants the article, and then she receives it; no country can be expected to buy what it does not want. The breadstuff sold in the European Dominions of Great Britain in the year 1790, amounted to $1,087,840.

Whale oil pays the heavy duty of eighteen pounds three shillings sterling per ton; yet spermaceti oil found a market there to the value of $81,048. Thus it appears that, of eight millions and a half sold to Great Britain and her Dominions, only the value of one million one hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars was under duty of a restrictive nature. The breadstuff is hardly to be considered as within the description, yet to give the argument its full force, what is it? about one-eighth part is restricted. To proceed with the residue:

Indigo, to the amount of
Live animals to the West Indies
Flax seed to Great Britain

Total

$473,830

62,415

219,924

756,169

Rice to Great Britain

7s. 4d. per cwt. duty-8s. 10d. on other fo-
reign rice.

To the West Indies
Other foreign rice prohibited.
Wood, to Great Britain
Free-higher duties on other foreign.
To the West Indies

per ton.

Yet, of the great sum of nearly eight millions and a half, the amount of the products before mentioned sold in her markets, two articles only are dutied by way of restriction. Bread stuff is dutied so high in the market of Great Britain, as in times of plenty to exclude it, and this is done from the desire to favor her own farmers. The mover of the resolutions justified the exclusion of our bread-Free-other foreign prohibited. stuff from the French West Indies by their per- Free 3d. on other foreign, equal to $10 Pot and pearl ashes manent regulations, because he said they were bound to prefer their own products to those even Naval stores, to Great Britain of the United States. It would seem that the same apology would do for England, in her home To the West Indies Higher duties on other foreign. market. But what will do for the vindication of Free other foreign prohibited. one nation becomes invective against another. Iron, to Great Britain The criminal nation, however, receives our bread-Free duties on other foreign. stuff in the West Indies free, and excludes other foreign, so as to give our producers the monopoly of the supply. This is no merit, in the judgment of the mover of the resolutions, because it is a fragment of her old Colony system. Notwithstanding the nature of the duties on breadstuff in

$858,006 273,505

2,754,493 22,816

773,852

180,077

240,174

382,481

747,078

190,670

6,162

81,612

6,510,926

Thus it appears, that nearly seven-eighths of the exports to the British Dominions are received on terms of positive favor. Foreigners, our rivals

JANUARY, 1794.J

Commerce of the United States.

[H. OF R.

in the sale of these articles, are either absolutely So much the better. If it is her interest to afford shut out of their market by prohibitions, or dis- to our commerce more encouragement than couraged in their competition with us by higher France gives, if she does this when she is inveteduties. There is some restriction, it is admitted, rate against us, as it is alleged, and when we are but there is, to balance it, a large amount re-indulging an avowed hatred towards her, and parceived duty free. The above surplus of six mil-tiality towards France, it shows that we have very lions and a half goes to the account of privilege solid ground to rely on. Her interest is, according and favor. This is better than she treats any to this statement, stronger than our passions, other foreign nation; it is better, indeed, than she stronger than her own, and is the more to be detreats her own subjects, because they are, by this pended on, as it cannot be put to any more trying means, deprived of a free and open market; it is experiment in future. The good will and friendbetter than our footing with any nation with ship of nations are hollow foundations to build our whom we have treaties. It has been demonstra- systems upon. Mutual interest is a bottom of tively shown that it is better than the footing on rock. The fervor of transient sentiments is not which France receives either the like articles, or better than straw or stubble. Some gentlemen the aggregate of our products. The best proof in have lamented this distrust of any relation bethe world is, that they are not sent to France; the tween nations except an interested one. But the merchants will find out the best market sooner substitution of any other principle could produce than we shall. little else than the hypocrisy of sentiment, and an instability of affairs. It would be relying on what is not stable, instead of what is; it would introduce into politics the jargon of romance. It is in this sense, and this only, that the word favor is used: a state of things so arranged as to produce our profit and advantage, though intended by Great Britain merely for her own. The disposition of a nation is immaterial; the fact that we profit by their system cannot be so to this discussion.

The footing of our exports, under the British system, is better than that of their exports to the United States, under our system. Nay, it is better than the freedom of commerce, which is one of the visions for which our solid prosperity is to be hazarded; for, suppose we could batter down her system of prohibitions and restrictions, it would be gaining a loss: one-eighth is restricted, and more than six-eighths has restrictions in its favor. It is as plain as figures can make it, that if a state of freedom for our exports is at par, the present system raises them, in point of privilege, above par. To suppose that we can terrify them by these resolutions to abolish their restrictions, and at the same time to maintain in our favor their duties, to exclude other foreigners from their market, is too absurd to be refuted.

The next point is, to consider whether our imports are on a good footing, or, in other words, whether we are in a situation to buy what we have occasion for at a cheap rate. In this view, the systems of the commercial nations are not to be complained of, as all are desirous of selling the products of their labor. Great Britain is not cenWe have heard that the market of France is sured in this respect. The objection is rather of the great centre of our interests; we are to look the opposite kind, that we buy too cheap, and to her, and not to England, for advantages. Be- therefore consume too much, and that we take not ing, as the style of theory is, our best customer only as much as we can pay for, but to the exand best friend, showing to our trade particular tent of our credit also. There is less freedom of favor and privilege, while England manifests in importation, however, from the West Indies. In her system such narrow and selfish views, it is this respect, France is more restrictive than Engstrange to remark such a pointed refutation of as- land; for the former allows the exportation to us sertions and opinions by facts. The amount sent of only rum and molasses, while England admits to France herself is very trivial; either our mer- that of sugar, coffee, and other principal West Inchants are ignorant of the best markets, or those dia products. Yet, even here, when the preferwhich they prefer are the best; and, if the Eng-ence seems to be decidedly due to the British syslish markets, in spite of the alleged ill usage, are still preferred to the French, it is a proof of the superior advantages of the former over the latter. The arguments I have adverted to, oblige those who urge them to make a greater difference in favor of the English, than the true state of facts will warrant. Indeed, if they persist in their arguments, they are bound to deny their own conclusions. They are bound to admit this position: if France receives little of such of our products as Great Britain takes on terms of privilege and favor, because of that favor, it allows the value of that favored footing. If France takes little of our articles, because she does not want them, it shows the absurdity of looking to her as the best cus

tomer.

It may be said, and truly, that Great Britain regards only her own interest in these arguments.

tem, occasion is taken to extol that of the French. We are told that they sell us the chief part of the molasses which is consumed or manufactured into rum, and that a great and truly important branch, the distillery, is kept up by their liberality in furnishing the raw material. There is at every step matter to confirm the remark, that nations have framed their regulations to suit their own interests, not ours. France is a great brandy manufacturer. She will not admit rum, therefore, even from her own islands, because it would supplant the consumption of brandy. The molasses was for that reason some years ago of no value in her islands, and was not even saved in casks. But the demand from America soon raised its value. The policy of England has been equally selfish. The molasses is distilled in her islands, because she has no manufacture of brandy to suffer by its sale: