JUGERNATH AFLOAT.
I see, my Friend, that you are bringing out your trump card.
“Behold!” you argue “the unfortunate condition to which America has
been reduced by her protectionist policy; she has scarcely a ship
afloat, whilst Free Trade England is carrying the commerce of the
world.”
First, I would ask, are you _quite_ sure that all this is caused by
Free Trade?
Don’t you think that it is just within the bounds of possibility
that our shrewd American cousins may possibly find a quicker and
more remunerative investment for their capital, in encouraging
their home-productive industries, and in employing their
home-labour productively, than in a keen competition with the
English for a barren trade that is not worth having?
Are you ignorant of the fact that the shipping trade has been a
losing concern for some considerable period?
Are you unaware of the fact that wheat has been frequently carried
as ballast, and has paid no freight; that other articles have been
carried at almost nominal rates?
In the _Civil and Military Gazette_ of 7th December, 1883, under
the Telegraphic Summary, I read--
“It is predicted that, unless freight rates to India speedily
improve, a considerable number of steamers now engaged in the
trade will be laid up.”
I also read in the _Madras Mail_, January 9th, 1884, that an organ
of the shipping interests in London has drawn up the probable
“results of the gross working of thirteen steamers of a well-known
Steam Navigation Company, the result of which is a total loss of
£34,000 in one year’s trading.”
Are the Americans to be pitied, because they have no share in this
losing concern?
If protectionism has kept them out of it, you can scarcely blame it.
But even without such keen competition, the Americans are
justified, by the writings of your sacred shastras, as may be seen
by the following quotation:
“The capital, therefore, employed in the _Home trade_ of any
country will generally give encouragement and support to a
greater quantity of productive labour in that country, and
increase the value of its annual produce, more than an equal
capital employed in the _Foreign trade_ of consumption; and
the capital employed in this latter trade has, in both these
respects, a _still greater advantage over an equal capital
engaged in the Carrying trade_.”[51]
So you see that the authority of your own sacred writings is
favourable to the policy of our American cousins in this respect.
FOOTNOTE:
[51] ‘Wealth of Nations,’ by Adam Smith, Bk. II. Chap. V.