The American Quarterly Review, No. 18, June 1831 (Vol 9)Various
History
The American Quarterly Review, No. 18, June 1831 (Vol 9)
Various
Intellectual life -- Periodicals; United States -- Intellectual life -- 19th century -- Periodicals
The plan we have proposed, of continuing the present duty for a limited
time, is consistent with the policy of all civilized nations, who do not
hesitate to grant monopolies for definite periods to the inventers of
new processes in the arts, and most of whom give equal encouragement to
those who merely introduce them. Our government, indeed, has never
adopted the latter principle, but it may well be questioned whether it
have not in this way prevented the introduction of many important
branches of manufacture. The former has been adopted in its full extent,
and its utility is unquestioned. If, then, it be sound and highly
profitable policy, to grant a monopoly to individuals for limited
periods, thereby excluding our own citizens from advantages which in
most cases lie open to foreign countries, much more will it be politic
and profitable, to protect a whole class of our own artificers from
external competition for a similar period, leaving the price to be
lessened by the competition that security, from a change of system, will
infallibly create. The usual limit of a patent right having been found
efficient in drawing forth inventive talent, an equal duration of
protecting duty might be depended upon as sufficient to induce the
investment of capital in a business whose processes are understood, and
in relation to which strict calculations can be made. But these
protecting duties must not suddenly cease; for if they do, a spirit of
speculation, both on our part and on that of foreign merchants, would
infallibly throw into the market an excess of the article from abroad;
and although the importer might not be exempted wholly from the ruinous
consequence of the over trade, infallible destruction would visit our
own establishments. Such was the case in 1816 and 1817. The losses on
the iron trade were not confined to our own manufacturers, but visited
the importers, whether British or American, and reached in their remote
consequences, but with diminished effect, the forges and furnaces of
England. The latter were, however, protected by the whole capital of the
merchant, which was annihilated before the ruin could reach them, while
the American establishments were directly exposed to it. The adventurous
spirit of British commerce, in fact, produced on this occasion an effect
similar to that which the people of the continent have erroneously
ascribed to the government of that country. New markets are no sooner
opened, than loads of British fabrics are thrown in, and necessarily
sacrificed; those who see no more than their own domestic misfortunes,
naturally ascribe to the policy of the nation, what is in fact the
misjudged enterprise of rash individuals. The effect has, however, been
in many cases the same, as if the act had been the result of a
deliberate national system; for the foreign industry has been often
prostrated, while the capital of the British has enabled it to bear the
momentary shock, and then to replace its losses by the undivided
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account