PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION. 
n 
to the canal, not as a toy of fancy, but as a commercial necessity; 
for having tested the utmost limit of cheapness which railways are 
capable of reaching, and finding the cost too expensive to leave a 
profit on production, sufficient to warrant the struggle between 
productive energy and transportation, the “old fashioned” canal 
is again announced among the “fashions” of commerce. 
I have no object in drawing’ invidious distinctions between our 
Atlantic cities, proud monuments of the nation’s greatness, but to 
show the force of the argument, and that trade and commerce, 
like water, will seek a proper level and flow in the freest chan¬ 
nels, I give the amount of imports and exports at each of our 
principal Atlantic seaport cities for the years of 1851, 1865 and 
1870, showing an interval of 20 years. 
Cities. 
Imports. 
Exports. 
1851. 
New York. 
$144,454,016 
30,508,139 
14,168,618 
6,648,774 
$79,857,315 
10,948,180 
5,356,036 
5,635,786 
Boston. 
Philadelphia. 
Baltimore. 
1865. 
New York. 
$175,983,989 
25,605,096 
7,357,150 
4,816,454 
$247,636,605 
21,934,068 
11,294,498 
11,141,037 
Boston.„. 
Philadelphia. 
Baltimore. 
1S70. 
New York. 
$293,990,008 
14,500,767 
47,524, 845 
19,572,468 
Wheat, bushels. 
29,557,464 
1,723.035 
884,820 
2,573,631 
Philadelphia. 
Boston. 
Baltimore. 
The student of cause and effect can have no difficulty in at¬ 
tributing this disparity in the import and export trade in favor of 
New York to her Erie Canal and better water connection with the 
great west—that city being the center of commercial gravity, as 
a matter of course secures the lion’s share of trade. The latter 
table shows also that New York is our grain market for export. 
If it were a question which of the two modes of transportation— 
water or rail—should now be chosen, I am inclined to believe the 
people would select the latter; for the former, with all its eco- 
