Huntingdon journal. (Huntingdon, Pa.) 1843-1859, September 02, 1846, Image 1
JOUR) AL SS .9anttlg a ctoopaper—V)tbottir to etnerat iintrlttgence, atibertioing,ltt(to, atterAttire, 111 Orattig, Avto, Actencen ; flortrttittire, Stitttoeinent, s cr., _ _ `QraDa. ezza ZZTQD. eßa3. PUBLISHED Br JAMES CLARK. C E:2 (OLP Ma The ~ .TounNer." will be published every Wed nesday morning, at $2 00 a year, if paid in advance, and if not paid within six months, $2 60. No subscription received for a shorter period than six months, nor any paper discontinued till all ar rearages are paid. Advertisements not exceeding one square, will be inserted three times for $1 00, and for every subse quent insertion 25 cents. If no definite orders are given as to the time an advertisement is to be continu ed, it will be kept in till ordered out, and charged ac cordingly. l. V. B. PALMER, Esq., is authorized to act as Agent for this paper, to procure subscriptions and advertisements in Philadelphia, New York, Balti more and Boston. OFFICES: • Pl a / a de/p/tia—Number 59 Pine street. Baltimore—S. E. corner of Baltimore and Cal• vert streets. New York—Number 160 Nassau street. Boston—Number 16 State street. STANTON'S EXTERNAL REMEDY CALLED HUNT'S LINIMENT. IS NOW UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO HE The Infalliable Remedy. For Rheumatism, Spinal liffections, Con ' tractions of the Muscles, Sore Throat and Quinsy, Issues, Old Ulcers, Pains in the Breast and Chest, Ague in the Breast and Face, Tooth Ache, Sprains, Bruises, ,Salt Rheum, Burns, Frosted Feet, and all Nervous diseases. THE following certificate of the resto ration to health and the perfect cure of a deformed and crippled child, who was thought to be beyond t'te reach of hope, shows that, no matter how appalling the case may be, there is a remedy in BUNT'S LINIMENT, that will conquer the most desperate cases, and that, if the disease be curable,this cerebrated external remedy will do it. It has never failed in giving immediate releif if timely applied,as proved by the abundance of high and un impeachable testimony, the particulars of which are to be found in the pamphlets Which are to be had of every agent. Ossinaing, June 10, 1845 GEORGE E. STANTON, ESQ.-Sir-I feel called upon by the tie of gratitude, to oiler the following testimony in favor of /feint's Liniment- My grandson, Clarke E. Evans, who is now ten years of age, has been for the last eight years a cripple, caus ed by falling from a chair when he was two years old, and wrenching his spine. From the time of the occurrence, we have tried every means to restore him to his natural shape, but all without avail. We took him to New York and placed him under the care of a physician of skill, anal after re maining there some time, we brought him home no better than when we took him there. For several days at times he was so helpless that he mild only walk by plac ing his hands upon his knees for support, giving him the appearance of a deformed hunchback. He,was also taken to Newburg and prescribed for without any better suc cess. At times he would be strong enough to go outdoors, but after playing an hour would come in perfectly exhausted, and for aeveral days would be again perfectly help. fess. We had lost all hope of ever again seeing him restored to his natural strengh or ahape—but a kind Providence placed your external remedy in my hands. I have used four bottles, and 1 am rejoiced to say that the boy is now as straight and strong as any boy of his age. Any of my neigh bors will testefy to the truth of this state ment. I take sincere pleasure in stating these facts fur the benefit of those who are sufl'aring under the like calamity. Yours, respectfully, RAC HEAL SIIUTE. This is to certify, That 1 am; persnn ally acquainted with the subscriber, Mrs. Shute, as well as the boy alluded , o. and frankly bear witness to the deformity of which he was seriously afflicted, aparently for lite.—Dated SinA.Sing, June 9, 1845. HENRY HARRIS, Justice of the Peace. Cc}l'or particulars of cures, see the cer tificate accommpanying each bottle. HOADLY, PHELPS (5 , CO., 142 Wa ter street, wholesale Agents. Orders ad dressed to them, or to the proprietor, Sing-Sing, will be attended to. GEORGE E. STANTON. Dated March 19, 1846. For sale by Thomas Read 4 Son, Hun tingdon, and the principal Stores and DrUggists throughout the country. July 15, 1846. DR. IX. Z. NEFF, SURGEON DENTIST, Huntingdon, Pa, ZORN SCOTT, 3R. sITTORA El' .IT Lair, HUNTINGDON, PA., Will attend with promptness and fidelity to all business with which ho may be entrusted in Hun- tingdon or the adjoining counties. His office is the ono formerly occupied by James Vtoel, Esq., nearly opposite Jackson's Hotel , . Huntingdon March 11, 1846. r:Ertsricsuazncsaa) ZPEti.6 o!idarociatorrotilioaou. aa34:116 (Zl3 UEIMIM:I OP THE EMT. CHARLiiiii HUDSON, • - - Of Massachusetts, on the WHEAT TRADE of the Country,dehvered in the House of Reprcten. talives of the United Stales. February 26, 1846. [CONCLUDED.] I have, I trust, clearly shown that the eastern continent has the physical ability of supplying the English market with breadstuff. And what is their fintnical ability Can the nation. upon the Baltic afford their grain in the English market as low an the United States? this is the great question to be decided. I have taken pains to satisfy myself upon this subject, and I have come to the conclusion that they can undersell us in that market. In the first place, we see that they do so at present, whtn the corn laws operate equally upon them and upon us. So long as the laws are equally applicable to them and us, it matters not whether the duty is high or low, or whether there is any duty at 811.- 1 say that they undersell us now, as appears by the fact that they supply 14 times as much as the United States. The following table will show the price of wheat per bushel in the principal marts of trade on the Continent, from 1830 to 1943, inclusive: to g a r... o 1 Ei a E ▪ ~3 g g is r -9 °.q 8 1830, $1 07 93 113 95 68 1831, 1 18 1 19 1 15 1 07 71 1832, 93 90 1 10 90 62 1933, 83 70 89 55 61 1834, 70 67 66 50 77 1835, 61 65 76 68 67 1836, 70 79 76 70 52 1837, 73 76 81 99 50 1838, 94 79 1 20 1 48 65 1839, 96 1 15 1 33 1 37 79 1840, 1 07 1 30 1 11 1 48 71 1841, 123 99 109 145 74 1842, 1 10 1 11 1 11 95 65 1843, 76 82 78 76 48 Average 91 90 99 98 64 Here we have the prices of wheat, at five great marts of the wheat trade, for 14 years, showing a general average of 89 cent. per bushel. The prices at our seaports during the same period, tone l follows: In IsSo $1 15 In 1837 $1 83 1831 1 18 1838 1 54 1832 1 15 1839 1 42 1833 1 13 1840 1 10 1834 1 08 1841 1 03 1835 1 19 1842 1 16 1836 1 44 1843 1 00 The general average of the aforenamed prices is $1 25 ; being 37 cents more than the average per bushel at the aforementioned ports on the Black Sea and Baltic. This shows demonstratively, that, in the first cost of grain, we are not able to come into fair competition with our trans-Atlantic wheat growers. And how is it with reference to freight? By official documents laid before Parliament it ap pears that the freight on the highest calculation cannot exceed, on an average, 13 cents per bushel. By the report of the Hon. Mr. Ellsworth, Commis sioner of Patents, laid before Congress in 1943, where he examines this subject somewhat minutely. it appears that the average freight from New York to Liverpool is 35 or 36 cent. per cwt. We cannot estimate wheat at lees than 56 pounds per bushel; and hence the freight must amount to 17 or 18 eta, per bushel. The difference in the freight and first Costs would make a balance against us of 41 cents per bushel. But as the year 1837 was one ofuncom monly high prices in this country, I will omit that year in my estimate, which will reduce this balance down to about 36 cents; and from this I will de duct, for difference of exchange, ;0 cents, which will bring the difference down to 26 cis. per bushel. The English consul, writing from Odessa, at the close of 1843, says: 'Udder present circumstan ces, extraordinary low freight and favorable ex change, a shipment of the hest wheat could now be made add delivered in England on the following terms, yiz: 6. d. First cost 22 6 per quarter. Charge of loading 2 5 " Freight 6 7 Insurance rSt factorage in Engiand 4 0 " Tot al 85 8 4. This reduced to our currency would amount to 97 cents per bushel delivered in England. And in 1843 there was still further rrdaction ; so that wheat from the Baltic could be delivered at En. gland without duty at 87 cents, and from the Black Sea at 78 or SO cents per bushel. A price much less than our wheat could be purchased at our own ports. This, as it appears to me, is a just and fair view of the subject. But it may be said that I have proved too much. And if the argument be sound, we cannot send any grain to Great Britain. But every practical man knows, that, between two great commercial nations, an article will be expor ted from ono to the other, when the prices in the two countries seem to forbid. The wheat that we have sent direct to Great Britain is toe considerable extent, the result of accidental causes. A merchant is indebted abroad, and must send forth something to discharge his debt, and not being able to meet the demand in specie, he sends forward a quantity of flour. Or, a vessel is going out without a full cargo, and will take grain for a mere trifle. Or, a speculator has a large amount of flour on hand, bought perhaps on six months, and is obliged to trend it out at a sacrifice. Our grain goes to England mainly in the shape of flour, by which a raving of 10 or 15 per cent. Oyer the eipett or wheat is reali zed. These are the causes more than any thing else, which enable no to supply the English market to the small extent we now do. Ask our mer chants who have had experience in this trade, and they will generally tell you that it is a precarious business, and one in which much more has been lost than made. But gentlemen seem to suppose that the repeal of the corn laws will give a new impulse to this trade, But how io this? On what pi inciple, I demand, do they base their calculations? If these laws are modified or repealed, it will be done by a general law, applicable alike to all nations. The present law IMposes no more duty upon wheat from the United States than upon wheat from the Baltic. Suppose those duties be reduced one-half, or annulled entirely, the north of Europe will en joy all the advantages of these changes as well as we. The scarcetrof grain in Europe, the partial failure of the wheat crop, and the disease among the potatoes, enables us at the present rims to send forth an unusual quantity. But It is unsafe to tea eon from a single year. In 1837, as ive have already seen, we imported 4,000,000 bushels of wheat into the United Staten ; and, were we to rea son from that year, we should be compelled to admit that we could not raise our own bread stuffs. If we would reason correctly on subjects such as this, we must take successions of years into the account. And if we do this, wo shall, I think, at once per ceive that the modification of the English corn lowa would not benefit us at all. We have had a practical illustration of this prin ciple. A. I have before said, that the modification of the English corn laws in 1842 did not increase the demand for grain in Great Britain ; on the con trary, in the first entire year after the reduction, the importation into Great Britain fell off more than one-half. And how was it with our exports to that market? Tho reduction in 1842 was about equal to the whole of the present duty; and Sir Robert Peel does not propose to take off all the duty at present. If the proposed reduction is to operate so much in our favor, we may expect to find that the greater reduction in 1842 proved a great blessing to the United States. And how was it with that modification I will tell you, Mr. Chairman. The reduction took place in April, 1842, and, falling In the midst of the commercial year, I have no means of deter mining its effect upon our exports for that year. I will, therefore, throw that year out of the account, and take the two years preceeding, and the two MC. ceedini, 1842. In the two preceding, viz: 1840 and 1841, we exported to Great Britain an average of 2,390,000 bushels a year; but in the two succee ding, viz: 1843 and 1844, we exported only an average of 464,800 bushels a year. But, sir, as I wish to do perfect justice to the subject, 1 readily admit that, by a change of a commercial year, the year 1843 centrism] of only nine months. I wish, therefore, to add to it another quarter, so ae to make it of the usual length. But if we add one-third to the imports of that year, so es to make up four quar ters, or twelve months, we shall have even then an average for the two years of only 476,700 bushels a year, which is in fact less than one-fifth of the average export of the two years preceding the mo dification of the English corn laws. lam not su perficial enough to ascribe this falling off of our export of wheat to the reduction of the British du• ties; but the case before us shows incontestibly that our wheat trade with England is governed by laws more efficient, more controlling, than any rate of duty. le it not, then, perfectly preposterous to maintain, that the partial reduction, or prospective repeal of the British duty upon wheat, will of ne cessity enable us to send more of our bread-stuff to that kingdom? But, sir, though no intelligent gentleman, con, I think, see any just cause for believing that we shall gain materially in the direct trade, it must be per fectly obvious that we shall lose in an indirect trade with Great Britain. Our best, and in fact our prin cipal trade with the mother country in the article M question, hes been through Canada. For the last seven years we have Cent into Canada 12,586,- 892 buehela of wheat, Ohne our direct trade to England, at the same time, has amounted to only 7,764,588 bushels, being 62 pet cent. more to Canada than to England. Or, if we take the last three years, we have sent into Canada 6,325,60 bushels, and Into England 2,097,598 bushels, be ing more than three times as much into Canada as into England. Here are facie, which no specula , Lion can bend—which no tholes can annul. The questions which now present themselves for our consideration are these: Why have we sent so little to England direct? And why so much to England through Canada I The answer to each of these questions is obvious. In our direct trade we come in competition with the north of Europe ; and the low price of labor enables them to undersell us in the English market. This is the reason, and the only satisfactory reason, why our direct trade with England has been so small. And the reason why we have sent so much to England through Canada is equally obvious. Our wheat which goes into Canada is, after being manufactured into flour, admitted into Great Britain on the colonial duty, which is much less than her duty on wheat or flour direct from this country. I have examined the English tables of artual duty paid during each week of 1843, and I find the mean difference between the duty actually paid on colonial and foreign wheat to be 14 shilling' the quarter, or 33 cents the bushel. All the wheat, therefore, which we send through Canada, ie admitted into the English marks on terms more favorable, by thirty•three cents a buehel, than the wheat which we send direct. From this, however, we moat take the Canadian duty of the average of S cents per pualiel, which reduces the sum to 25 cents. Now this advantage of 25 cents per bushel—this monopoly of the colonial trade which we enjoy, and of which the north of Europe is deprived, is whht enables us to send more than two-thirde of our et port of wheat to Cheat Britain. But repeal the corn laws of England, and we are deprived of this mo nopoly, and are brought directly in competition with the great wheat-growing countries on the Bal tic, where the agricultural laborers can be obtained for ;from 8 pence to a shilling a day, and board themselves. Are the independent yeomanry of the West prepared to yield all the benefits of the Cana detradc, and thus loose two-thirds of the market which they now enjoy ? Are they willing to be brought into competition with the down-trodden Pelee attl serfs of Russia, and so be compelled to labor for fifteen or twenty cents per day I Would devotion to party, or the satisfaction of frillowing out the delusive theory of free trade, reconcile them to a condition so degraded I If they possess the independent spirit of freemen—if they are Ameri cans—they will spurn such an idea. But Mr. Secretary Walker, *hese devotioil to British interests haa been complimented in that country by the publicttion of his report, would have us understand that the opening of the British ports to ottr grain would be ti great blessing to this coun try. But on what principle does lie found his theory? What facts does ho adduce to sustain his position? None whatever. He asks us to believe, but furnishes its with no evidence to sustain our faith. In this respect he deals less fairly with us than Lord Ashburton himself. At a meeting at Winchester, Jan. 19, 1846, Lord Ashburton, when speaking on this very subject, said that protection had existed in England from the days of Planta genets, whilst the whole line of country opposite to us on the continent--France, Belgium, Holland, and Prussia; indeed, almost every country in the world—monarchical Europe as well as republican America--had its protective laws and regulations." " It was clear, that, in the event of a recurrence of difficulties, her (America's) first step would be again to shut her ports against us—in which case the supply from America would undoubtedly fail us. But the supply must not be expected from Ameri ca; and we could not have a better proof of this than the fact that, at this moment, American corn could come here from Canada at a duty of four ahilliags; and yet, if the returns were examined, it would be found that nine-tenths of the foreign corn in England was from the Baltic, though the duty on the corn from its shores was 15 shillings a quarter. This was entirely owing to the low price of labor in the north of Europe. Here Lord Ashburton, more frank than the Amer ican Secretary, admits that the United Stales would not derive any benefit from the proposed change ir! thelawa. Speaking on this subject in Parliament, on the 29th of January, Lord Ashburton said, " the British farmer must not have his hands tied behind him. bid he meet the foreigner on equal terms' The farmer on the shorea of the Baltic had his labor at 6 pence a day td ccimpete with the farmer of this country, (England,) With hit labor at 2 shillings Jay. It required no skill in political economy to discover that these two parties did not meet on equal terms." These remarks in Parliament would apply with additional force in Congrres. If the British farmer, whose labor costs him 2 ehillings a day, cannot com pete with the fanner on the Baltic, whose labor I costs him 0 pence, how can the farmer in the United States, whose labor is worth 4 shillings a day, com pete with the cheap labor on the Baltic I Lord ' Ashburton warns the people of England of their danger, but the advocate of British interests in this country would lead us blindly into the very jaws of this ruinous competition. But, sir, this is not all. The very policy which would destroy the moat important branch of our wheat trade, viz : that through Canada, would, at the came time, greatly impair our market et home. The beet and the &reit Market for the*lttet grotfer iii fi , und in the manufacturing distal-Jo in our cots try. This home market is near at hat'd, is not dis turbed by rubtrMs foreign competition, is not sub ject to that fluctuation which has over characterized the British market, and is, in fact, the principal market for our bread Muff. 'With our present pro tective policy, this market is constantly increasing. Si Robert Peel has justly said, that the revenue and the demand, and the prim of labor and all coin modifies, seemed to depend upon the general pros perity of the country more than upon any partic ular legislation. Our present policy tends to pro duce that general prosperity, and as creates a de mand for the agricultural products of the United States. Tho demand for wheat in this country is constantly increasing. Thousands who, ten years ago made rye end Indian corn their principal bread stuff, now consume a large quantity of wheat.— The State of Massachusetts alone consumes about three times as much wheat, the growth of other States, as wo send to England direct, and the New England States more than our entire apart to all foreign countries. Lest this position should be thought extratagant, let me present, in as brief a manner kid I may, some of the facts on which this calculation is based. The present population of Massachusetts may safely be estimated at 815,000. More than half of air en• tire population are engaged in other callings than dgrictiflure ; and to those thud employed T give one barrel of flour, or five bushels of wheat, per head. This estimate cannot be considered extravagant.— Those engaged directly or indirectly in manufac tures and the mechanic arts, in trade and commerce in all ire varieties, in nahigation in all its forms, in the fisheries Of all kinds, and those employed ht the learned professions and ad teachers—these with their families and dependants, would constitute at least 420,000 of our population, and would consume a barrel of flour per hand. The other 205,000 of our population, employed in agriculture, may be as. stained to consume a half barrel per head, which will give 197,000 barrels—making a total of 617,- 000 barrels of flour. Flour is also aced in considerable quantities in manufactur es. There is used in Lowell alone, for starch and sizing, at least 4,000 bat rely an nually which may be considered as one-fourth of the amount consumed in the State. The quantity thus consumed, when•added to that used as bread stuff, would make the entire consumption 633,01 be. rels, or 3,165,000 bushels. This estimate is fully sustained by the imports into the State. There was brought into Boston, in 1845, 730 138 barrels of flour ; sod although one-half of this may have been reshipped, or sent to Maine and New Hampshire, the flour brought into Salorn, New Bed ford, Fall River and ether smaller ports, and by the several railroads, will make up the deficiency. The railroad from Albany Jo Boston, in 1844, distrib uted within the interior of the State, of flour brought frorti Albany, 144,704 barrels. There was also brought into Boston. from other States, in 1845, 2,371,406 bushels of Indian corn, 548,683 bushels of oats, 24,184 bushels of rye, end 05,630 bushels of shorts. Nearly the whole of this was consumed in the State, and largo quantities of the same kinds of grain were brought into the Suite et ether points I have no means of knowing the amount consu• met] in the other New Englan I States, but, as their population is about 1,600,000, it will be safe to give them, upon an average, three bushels per head, which will make a consumption of 4,800,- 000 bushels a year. This, added to the consump tion of Massachusetts, will give a total of 7,965,- 000 bushels, being at least half a million more than our average export to all foreign nations. I have estimated the consumption of the New England States, other than Massachusetts, at considerable less per head than my own State; because, with the exception of Rhode Island, they are more agri cultural, and because they raise a venter propor tion of wheat 'from their own soil. This estimate may not be entirely accurate, but I am confident that it cannot be far from the truth. But manufactures are not by any means confined to New England. Now York, New Jersey, Penn sylvania, and several other Staten, are deeply enga ged in them; and all these manufacturing establish ment. furnish so many markets for the wheat grow ers. If the repeal of the corn laws should cut dff our trade through Cirfadd, we should have a sur plus which would reduce the price, and so injure the grain growing interest. Nay, if our duty on foreign wheat were repealed, the ras:eift States would, when the crops are good in Europe, receive a portion of their supply froth the Baltic: /sift] if our present protective policy is to be bartered for ei repeal of the corn laws, and large quantities of Brit ish goods are to be thrown into our market, it will • prostrate many of our manufactories, add thereby destroy the home market, which the grain growers now enjoy. Let our present policy be abandoned, and the surplus of Europe be thrown in upon us, and the balance of trade will neon be turned against I us; in which case our specie will be sent abroad, our currency will be deranged, and all the evils we experienced a few years since will return. Individ ual enterprise will be paralized, our imports will fall off from our inability to purchase, and the Govern ment Will be bankrupt as it was in 184122. These are the evils which the proposed policy will, in my estimation, bring in its train. But we shall be told that Great tritain has sat us a noble example, anti we, as a free people, should follow it. But what Is the example which Great Britain has sell She has consulted het own inter est ; and prcipcdo eci make such is modification ef her policy as is, in the estimation of her Ministry, hest suited to her present condition dad the condi tion of the world. She sees that her corn laws have deluded the wheal of Germany and Prussic, and have driven them into manufacturing. She sees, that instead of being her customers, they are begin ning to become her conipetitors for the markets of the world, and she wishes to arrest their progress. She secs, also, in the United States it great and powerful rival, and she wishes to embrace the pres ent opportunity to Check our growth and impair our prosperity. She regards the present moment as pe culiarly favorable to strike the fatal blow. She be holds in our Chief Magistrate a leaning to a com mercial policy which is well suited to her condition, but illy adapted to our own. She finds in the Sec retary of the Treasury an advocate of her interests rind rho greets him with well done, good and faithful servant." But if gentlemen suppose that Great Britain has any special reference to the welfare of any other nation, let them undeceive themselves. All her proposed changes have reference to her own prow , parity. She takes the duty off from American cot ton, not to benefit our cotton growers, but to enable her own manufacturers to compete more successfully with the manufacturers of this country for our mar. ket, and the other inatkets into which our manufac tures hare found their way. If she wialmo to pro. gamin® ®v a›ebei mete the agricultural interests of this country, why does she not abate her 1200 per cent. duty upon American tobacco, and stiffer it to come in et a mod:; orate rate No nation lodks more carefully to her own interests than Great Britain; and no one leg, islates more understandingly. Her agriculture and manufactures have been carried to the highest point of perfection ; and, seeing herself in advance of the nations. she no* proposes free trade, with a full conviction that She will prove more than a match for them in such an unequal contest. Bhe has built herself up by her Navigation act, and other restric tive measure*, and now she proposes a partial aban-. donment of that &Hey,. and kindly invites other stations to give up the very policy which has made her what she ie. Free trade with such a nation would be like intercourse between the wolf and the laMb. To the one it might prove beneficial, but to the other it would be dir'sth. Free trade, in fact, con never exist between nations 'situated so different ly as the United States and Great Britain. If both nations shou'Al Model thole ieveniie la we sifter the same standard, the trade between us would not be " free and equal." Her accumulated capital, her low rate of interest, the cheapness of her labor, the advanced state of her Manufactures, would give her en adVantr ge over us. You must make all thingi equal at home, by equivalents and balances, before any two nations cart have a system of commercial intercourse which will be strictly reciprocal anti equally productive of the prosperity of both. I do not intend to Censure Great Britain for the now policy Which she proporiee. She is the guar dian of licr own interests, and will see that they are well protected. In fact, consider her example worthy of our imitation. She conforms to her con dition, and it becomes us to conform to ours. The cheapness of capital and the low price of labor in that kingdom ure the great characteristics, en far as this question is concerned ; and, in order to meat her on equal ground, our independent laborers muse consent to come down to the low standard of the half starved labor of England. They must be con tent to labor for from 30 to 50 eta per day, end board themselves. But aro they willing to do ill— Will the free born citizens of America consent to degradation like this! I trust they will not. The glory of our country consists in the fact that here the laborer is worthy of his biro." The great mass of oar people are born to no other inheritance than the privilege which our cbtltitri holds out to every industrious man, of obtaining a comfortable Ding by the fruit of his own toil; and he is a free man, indeed, who is born to such a patrimony.— - The consciousness that tic can sustain himself by his evlm hands, and that well directed industry will enable him to provide for the maihtenance of his family and the education of his child] en, more than any thing else, gives charit'cier to an American, and makes !net whit he was designed to be by his Cre atrir, a marl. Iftit if We are to adopt the Principle of free inftik the manly and independent character of our laborers must be given up; and they must content them selves with dragging Ora a miserable existence in poierty and wretchedness. This, after all, is the great objection to the policy which has been recom mended. The rich man needs no sympathy. His wealth will give him consequence in any state of society ; and 0 chdrige, duch free Wide will Wing ' upon rid, wotild increase the relative value of hid treasures. L o ring the laborer down to . the English standard, reduce his wages to the low level of the old world, and you ptit hiMcompletely into the pow er of the capitalists of the country. Such a change Would break up our small manufacturing establish ments, and turn many an honest laborer out of em ploy. But the Lowell manufactories would go on; the pike Of labor would be reduced; and, having no competition, these wealthy establishments would continue to make fair dividends. The South and the West would suffer most. Their infant man ufactures would be prostrated ; but the older and more skilful establishments of New England would survive: Their currency would be deranged , but the accumulated wealth in the Eastern States would' supply them with a sound circulating medium.— Born to toil, the hardy sensor New England would' put forth their energy and enterprise; and, by that industry and frugality for which they are distingnlah= ed, they would obtain a comfortable livelihodd; the* would have "bread enough, and to spare;" while their brethren, in some other sections of the Conn - try, "would perish with hunger." New England desires no change. She believes that our present' policy is best adapted to the interests of the whole country. Being laborers ourselvea, our ay mpathiee are with those who eat their bread idthe sweat . of their brows , . We adhere to our present polieY.' because the interest of labor requires it; becarise change would fall heaviest upon those who hate no capital but their own hands. But if a ciiange must come—if the prosperity of the country 111U6 1 be Ril ic k en down, the sons of the pilgrims, enured to toil, and familiar with hardships, will turn theit' attention to Their ice and their gr &rite, and convert them into bread. If folly must prevail in our na tional councils, and the storm of adversity ensues, they will endeavor to brave the tempest; and, though they have no desire to "ride upon the Whirl wind," they will, as far as in them lies, so "direct the storm" that its pittileas peltingv may Call upon other heads than their oWn. A l'axstimen.—" You ought to have a pen sion," said a wag to an unfortunate who wee in the habit of taking a drop too much. " How so?" en quired the redeye. Why you fell et the battle ol Brandy Wine .'