| 96 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE
not practicable-no matter how desirable from a patriotic or
moral point of view -since Americans could not do without
certain necessities which were not then grown or manufac-
tured in the United States.27
" A Friend to Agriculture and Manufactures " preferred
bounties and premiums to protective tariffs for encouraging
manufacturing; in fact, he entitled his series of essays " The
Importance of Premiums in Encouraging Agriculture and the
Useful Arts, Briefly Considered." He, among others, favored
premiums because they, unlike tariffs, would not be a tax paid
by the consumer but be a direct aid from the sponsoring organ-
ization, whether public or private. He also favored the giving
of premiums or bounties for new or excellent local products
and inventions: besides the actual monetary reward, the prize
would confer honor and distinction upon the recipiant and
would " excite emulation." 2$ Although not directly mentioned
by these newspaper writers, bounties and premiums could be
enacted by the states after 1789, while under the new United
States Constitution, the enactment of import or export duties
without the permission of Congress was forbidden to them.
Some thought that Marylanders already engaged in manu-
facturing could he considerably aided by the liberalization of
credit and money. This argument was used in 1785 and 1786
to strengthen the position of those advocating a paper money
bill in the General Assembly. One such person, signing him-
self " A Citizen of Maryland," thought that an emission of
paper money would " give . . . an elastic spring to business,
which is now stagnant for want of cash." Since industry was
the real wealth of Maryland, the emission would probably
" encourage our own tradesmen and manufacturers " and
would keep " many useful, labourious people employed." 29 A
few months later " Cato " wrote that many Marylanders " ar-
dently " wished to see manufacturing established and prosper-
ing in the state. But, he queried, " Can it ever be done with-
$7 B. Md. Gaz., Aug. 29, 1784, p. 2.
21 He also found fault with discouraging manufactures of other states by im-
posing duties on them. From examining the laws of other states, he found
that
any United States' manufactures entering those states were excluded from
paying
duties. He concluded, " Ought not gratitude alone, enduce us, to extend our
liberality equal with the other states?"
90Ibid., Sept. 26, 1786, p. 8.
|
