of us.

But, although the object is one of vast moment to England, it hardly justifies her in misrepresenting us. To what extent the British press is capable of doing this, we all know by recent as well as earlier experience. In many, perhaps in most, of these attacks, the fallacy is apparent, and, however it may deceive English readers, has no such effect here. Not so, when, in a case like that of our commercial regulations, they assail and misrepresent the United States. Very few, comparatively, make themselves familiar with the numerous and minute details of a tariff schedule; and still smaller is the number of those who are competent to appreciate the bearing of parti cular duties on the great internal interests of the country, or on our relations with other parts of the world. This is evident in the thoughtless indorsement which British misstatements have so often received from the American press. In illustration of this, a striking instance must be fresh in memory: I mean, of course, the fierce onslaught which was made on our Morrill Tariff (so called) by the whole force of British journaldom, and the meck acquiescence with which that attack was received here. To show that these English writers (some specimens of whose lucubrations are given in note1)

1 "The bill called the 'Morrill-Tariff Bill' is an act for the establishment of protective duties on a most extravagant scale. If it were designed to condemn the very principles of free trade, and to introduce those of protection as forming the only true theory of international commerce, it could not have been more strongly formed. The duties imposed by this bill are not only immoderately high, but they are levied upon imports of the first necessity. The articles taxed are not mere luxuries, or commodities entering into the consumption of the opulent alone. It is upon cotton goods, woollen goods, and hardware, that the imposts will fall. Cutlery is to be taxed upwards of fifty per cent in the lowest instance; in the highest, nearly two hundred and fifty. In addition to this, the bill enacts so many complicated arrangements, and throws such interminable obstructions in the way of business, that commerce will be next to impossible under conditions so difficult. We need not enter into the particulars of the act, which is said to be scarcely intelligible even to Americans themselves; but we can convey a very good idea of its character and purpose by observing, that, if it should be passed, it will almost prohibit all imports into the United States from England, France, and Germany.... That bill would be far more detrimental to the interests of America than to those of Europe. The blow would do little damage to this country; but such a proposal, at such a moment, will look like a new sacrifice of the Southern States to the exigencies of the Northern, and will intensify the quarrel between them by jealousies which will survive after the political tempest has rolled away.

"It has now become perfectly known, that protection in. these matters is only another name for suicide; and, when a State establishes a prohibitory tariff, it is itself the sufferer from its own ordinances. If the backwoodsmen of America are to be deprived of good axes, and settlers of cheap clothing, the penalty will be paid by them. At the same time, however, though we

shall not think the worse of America for this measure, except as regards her financial wisdom, we must needs remark, that as amity follows free trade, so is estrangement or indifference likely to follow commercial seclusion. It is rather an extraordinary reflection, that what we have just been endeavoring to do, at some cost, as regards France, America should propose to undo as regards us.... If the people of the United States should refuse to purchase in our markets what it is for their own interest to buy, and if they should decide upon manufacturing for themselves the articles which we could send them at a less price and of a better quality, they, and they only, will be the losers."— London Times, March 5, 1861.

"When we see how completely American legislation appears to be based upon mere local or personal motives; when we mark the indecent haste with which, the moment the restraining presence of the representatives of the Southern States is removed, the Northern protectionists rush in selfishly with a programme framed in their own interest, and certain to widen the breach between the disputing sections of the nation, the want of patriotic feeling which they betray becomes really lamentable. Their conduct tends to justify the bitterly regretful remark, uttered before now by American lips, that 'there are no statesmen in America, none who are capable of forgetting faction and class interests in the grand cause of the country at large. It is disgraceful, in the present crisis of American affairs, for these narrow politicians to be driving in the wedge of disunion with might and main; for the effect of the new fiscal legislation must be to render a reconciliation between the North and South inevitable. President Buchanan is a Pennsylvania man, and, it is said, has been willing to curry favor with his native iron-interest, even at the cost of his country. It is not as if the new tariff were only moderately restrictive: it is, in many respects, practically prohibitory. . . . There is thus ground to fear, that our

present a very exaggerated, and consequently a very false, view of the law which they condemn, it is not necessary to maintain that this much-talked-of tariff is perfect. No such tariff has yet been seen. Undoubtedly, in some cases, its rates are higher than a sound policy justifies. This is due partly to the fact, that it applies the same specific duty to different kinds or grades of the same article, which grades vary widely in their essential value, so that the impost seems too low at one extreme, and too high at the other. This is a difficulty, with respect to some articles, inseparable, perhaps, from the specific system; but an evil, as experience has abundantly shown, far less than that which it avoids. The instances of excessive duties, however, are few in

number, and apply to grades of goods in which the trade is comparatively limited. On the whole, the faults of the Morrill Tariff seem to be rather imperfection of details, than error in the general scope and character of the law. I deem it. a sufficient answer to the vague and exaggerated misrepresentations of the British writers to state, that, taking the entire dutiable imports together, the average rate of duty imposed thereon by the Morrill Tariff is not higher than the average rate of the United-States Tariff of 1846. As I do not ask that any assertion of mine should be taken on trust, I beg the reader to consult No. 70 of the Appendix, where he will see a comparative statement of the duties payable under the two tariffs referred to, and also under the tariff of 1857.

Considering the circumstances under which it was brought forward and passed, the tariff of 1846 may be regarded as a Southern measure. It was devised and advocated by men who professed the free-trade doctrines; and was, with good reason, supposed to be acceptable to the politicians and economists of that school, on both sides of the water. In view of this fact, and of the statement above respecting the average duties imposed by the two laws, it seems a little singular that the tariff of 1861 has been so much abused. The Morrill Tariff has been complained of as complicated

trade with America will retain the one-sided character lately acquired by it; for, even if that country declines to take our commodities on the former terms of free interchange, we shall continue to take her cotton, breadstuffs, and provisions, as long as she supplies them more cheaply than we can get them elsewhere."- London News, March 18, 1861.

"It cannot but be admitted, that the hurrying into law, In the absence of the Southern members, of a crude, sectional, and selfish measure, like the Morrill-Tariff Bill, goes far to justify any new revival of the old nullification' doctrine, a scandal in its first announcement, but a success. If one section (such as the Pennsylvanian) can sell its vote in a presidential election at the price of a prohibitive duty on manufactures (iron,

&c.) which it desires to monopolize, how can it be expected that other sections - shamelessly sacrificed by the bargain should fail to raise the standard of 'nullification,' or whatever other watchword may express their separate resolution not to be sold in the bargain by which the monopolist sections are bought? If the arrière pensée of the outgoing President really was to place the South in the right, so far as a shabby specimen of Northern selfishness could do it, and to frustrate beforehand by deeds the fair appeal in words of the incoming President to his 'dissatisfied fellow-countrymen,' Mr. Buchanan's Parthian shot may be considered a well-aimed one."— London Globe, March 20.

and unintelligible. In this respect, however, it compares favorably with the British Tariff; as any one may see, who will take the trouble to compare No. 70 of the Appendix with No. 72.

The most important change effected by the Morrill Tariff consists in the substitution, in some instances, of specific duties for duties ad valorem. While it is undoubtedly true, that this much-needed reform, and judicious return to former usage, will curtail the profits of many foreign tradesmen by excluding their dishonest invoices, no houorable Englishman can with any face object to the change. The superior advantage of specific dutics is fully recognized in the tariff of Great Britain, and is re-affirmed by the provisions of the Anglo-French commercial treaty.'

TABLE I.

Comparative View of the Imports (exclusive of Coin and Bullion) and Customs-duties of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of the United States; exhibiting the Percentage of such Duties on the Value of Total Imports, on the Value of Total Imports exclusive of Cotton, and on the Value of Dutiable Imports: being the mean Annual Results of the Years 1856, 1857, 1858, and 1859.•

This table has been made up from the official reports of the two countries; taking, in the case of England, the value of each article separately, as given in the Annual Report of Trade and Navigation. The labor was much increased by the fact, that the aggregate dutiable imports, and the average percentage of duty thereon, are not stated in the English returns.

1 See No. 1 of the Appendix, Article 13 of the treaty.

Table I presents in comparative view the mean annual value of imports and amount of customs-duties in Great Britain and the United States for the four years which begin with 1856. Notwithstanding that the first half of this period came under the tariff of 1846, we find the average rate of duty paid by England, on her total imports, only about four and a half per cent less than the average rate paid by the United States. Leaving out cotton, our average exceeds hers not quite two per cent. But, if we take into the account only the dutiable imports, the balance is decidedly the other way; the annual average of such imports in England being $118,204,920 larger than our annual average amount of the same, while her average rate of duty upon them is nearly ten per cent higher than our rate. In view of these facts, does England stand in any such position of advantage, with respect to her customsduties, as to justify the arrogant tone in which she is accustomed to speak of our tariff-acts?

Table J invites the reader to another comparison, which he will find instructive, and perhaps surprising. It gives results for 1859; that being the latest year for which the English returns could be obtained. This table shows a difference of only $3,354,095 between the amount of duties paid by the United States on their imports from Great Britain, and the amount which Great Britain paid on her imports from the United States. Even this difference would be much reduced, or wholly done away, if

we were able to deduct the sum paid on productions of other countries, which come through England, and were entered as English imports.1

Considering how much we have been berated for our high imposts on English manufactures, it is a remarkable fact, that the amount of duty ($19,724,420) imposed by the British Government on the single article of tobacco, imported into England from the United States in 1859 (by no means an exceptional year), exceeds; by more than half a million dollars, the entire amount of duty collected by the United States on all their imports of English manufactures - articles wholly manufactured - of every description.❜

The peculiar condition of the country, and consequent suspension or derangement of its business and trade,—a change which came on soon after the enactment of the Morrill Tariff, and still continues, have made it difficult to estimate the revenue it would yield under a different state of affairs. No one, with any show of reason, can ascribe, in any considerable degree, the falling-off of our imports to the operation of this law. Looking at the respective provisions of the tariffs of 1846 and 1861, we find in the comparison no ground for supposing, that, under ordinary circumstances, the Morrill Tariff, as originally passed, would differ materially, in revenue capacity, from the Free-trade Tariff of 1846.

England complains of us, and condemns the Morrill Tariff; not so much, we presume, on account of its actual provisions, as because she sees in it a deliberate purpose to take care of ourselves, and the probable discomfiture of her plans and efforts to draw us into the ranks of free-trading nations. We admit that she has reason to feel somewhat anxious on this point. It needs but a glance at the respective conditions of the two countries, and at the relations subsisting between them, to convince any disinterested observer, that on no other country is England so dependent for future prosperity as on the United States. In 1859, nearly twenty per cent of her entire imports, and about eighteen per cent of her exports, were from and to the United States. The details of Table K furnish the evidence of this fact.

1 In the United-States Custom-house returns, merchandise imported from France, Germany, and other countries, through England, are entered as imports from England. Our indirect imports of the productions of other countries, rid England, are very considerable, as is shown by No. 6 A, p. 33 A, of the Appendix. In 1859, they amounted in value to $17,832,782, consisting chiefly of goods paying the higher rates of duty. Assuming the average rate to be twenty per cent, the amount of duty due to these indirect imports would be $3,566,556; or a Hittle more than the excess in question.