Free Goods.

To the Editor of the Liberator.

SIR—In your paper of the 19th of February last, were published some questions proposed by me, relating to the use of the productions of slave labor. Among them were some requesting information respecting the culture of rice, sugar and cotton by freemen, answers to which were obligingly given by the Committee of the Free Produce Society of Philadelphia, and published in the Liberator of June 11th. I was much interested by these answers; and though so long a time has elapsed, am inclined to make some observations suggested by them. I am gratified to see that there is so good a prospect of procuring an abundant supply of cotton raised by free labor. The small quantity mentioned as having been already procured, both of this and other articles, will serve indeed to excite a smile of derision on the countenances of those, who, viewing the whole project of avoiding the use of slave productions as absurd, compare these few bales of cotton and casks of rice with the ship loads which are daily entering our harbors, and filling our ware-houses. They contemptuously ask if it is expected thus to turn the established course of trade and commerce. All that has been done in this way, is in truth but a drop to the ocean, a single seed to the produce of the harvest. Yet drop joined to drop filleth the ocean, and the single seed may prove the origin of future abundance. Whether it will be so or not in the present case, whether enough will join in the undertaking to accomplish any thing of magnitude, we know not; but should it not be so, they who have made the effort will have done their part, will have forborne to add their drop to the ocean of iniquity in which the rights of the Africans have been sunk. Experience, teaches not to despise small beginnings. The first protestant Missionary Society consisted of five persons, and the first subscription to it amounted to less than fourteen pounds. The Temperance cause was long considered a forlorn hope, and the plans of its friends pronounced visionary. The present success of both these undertakings is well known. A moral impulse, be it remembered, has a peculiar tendency to propagate itself, and none can tell where it will stop. A moral effort has undeniably checked the trade of distillers; why may it not that of the employers of slave labor? The production of ardent spirits has been diminished to a sensible and important amount; and why may not that of commodities raised by oppression? Are not the sugar and the cotton trade as much within the reach of moral energy as the rum trade? Is the taste for sugar more unconquerable than the taste for rum? It may be said that the sin of using the first is disputable, of the last not so. It may be replied,—the time is not long gone by, since the daily use of spirit in moderate quantities was thought by most persons to be as innocent as the use of sugar, and the moderate use of the former to be as little connected with the prevalence of intemperance, as that of the latter with the continuance of slavery. But I must not enlarge. I will only add here, that judging from the numbers I have myself heard say that they would willingly give up the use of slave produce, could they hope that a sufficient number would do the same to make it of any use, there is reason to believe that the very persons who are of this mind are enough to constitute that sufficient number. It were much to be wished, therefore, that all such would immediately begin what they profess a willingness to do, and multitudes would then surprise each other by starting up, simultaneously, though not by agreement.

The account given by the Committee of the Philadelphia Free Produce Society of rice being raised by free labor in small quantities by many different individuals, and of the premium offered to induce its collection, has led me to reflect on the operation of this and similar measures. It is evident that if the premium leads only to the collection of rice now raised, and not to any additional cultivation of it by free labor, nothing is gained. It is to be considered that the rice collected would have been consumed by somebody if not thus sought after, and those who would have consumed it will in all probability supply themselves elsewhere, that is, with rice raised by slaves. The effect of thus collecting the free article, it is true, may be, and to some extent probably will be, to induce some persons to raise it by free labor, who did not do so before; and so far as it has this tendency, it is useful. But it has occurred to me that other premiums might be offered which would be more direct in their operation of inducing cultivation by free labor; suppose in addition to such an one as has been offered, a higher premium for a certain quantity of rice or other article usually raised by slaves, if raised by free labor on one estate; another and still higher for the same if raised by emancipated slaves, emancipated for the purpose or after the offer of the premium. This last should extend to sugar and cotton as much as to rice, and proportionably to any quantity of them however small, and should if possible be of considerable value. I am ignorant of the means which free produce societies possess of offering such premiums; but surely benevolent individuals exist with abundant ability to aid in doing it, and to whom the inclination would not be wanting, could its utility be clearly manifested. Supposing such a premium as the last proposed were offered, it is plain that if it were gained, something real and valuable would be accomplished and secured; and, at the worst, if no one were induced to obtain it, no harm would be done or loss incurred by the offer. But if large enough, some one would be induced to obtain it. To be certain of having procured the emancipation of even one slave, would be no trifling satisfaction; but if that of a larger number should be the result of such an effort, there would not only be the certainty of the direct good of their freedom, but this would be farther valuable as an example, and an experiment proving the practicability of cultivation by freed slaves.

I suggest these, I trust not chimerical projects, for the attention of those who are able to accomplish them.

Having been so successful in obtaining answers to former queries, I am encouraged to request from you or your correspondents father information in reply to the following—

1st. How many Free Produce societies are there in the United States?

2d. How long is it since the first was formed?

3d. How large are they?

4th. On what principles are they established?

5th. Do they adopt the principle of total abstinence from the productions of slave labor, or only of procuring free articles in preference when they can?

6th. If total abstinence is not the principle on which these societies are founded, how far is it adopted by the members as individuals?

One of my former questions remains unanswered, viz. What objections are there to giving up the use of articles raised by slave labor? I sincerely wish to see it answered, and that some one of those who do object, would state plainly what is to be said against the reasons which have been brought forward in favor of adopting this measure.

S.T.U.