The Sun.
London, England, 1866-11-23 00:00:00

Protection versus Free Trade in America.

The most remarkable writer amongst the hosts
of New York correspondents of the London news-
paper press is the gentleman who styles himself
" A Yankee," and writes as the special cor-
respondent of the Spectator. Ills letter, dated
New York, October 19, 1866, is a strik-
ing document on " Free Trade and Democracy."
In England Americans are said to be hope-
lessly ignorant of the laws of political economy.
It is accepted as a conclusive proof of this assertion
that the Americans drift year by year further and
further into the errors of Protection. The principles
of economical science are universal, and applicable
alike to all nations. These principles support the
system of Free Trade ; and, add the English, we
have tried both Protection and Free Trade, and have
found practically that the laws of political economy
are true. " A Yankee" does not attempt to con-
trovert the arguments said to prove that Free Trade
is based on sound political economy. He steps alto-
gether out of the line usually taken by Protec-
tionists, and clearly shows what the feelings and
objects of the American people are in adopting so
strongly the principles of Protection. First, he
shows that the arguments brought forward on both
sides of the question are better understood in
America than in any other country. He admits
the full force of those in favour of Free
Trade, and adds that they are never seriously
disputed in America, except by newspapers,
and people who are rabid on the opposite side.
Then he breaks away from the question, to prove
that the American people are actuated by other and
higher motives than mere present gain. Admitting
h simple—so is despotism. Free
Td despotism might be. Free ex-
change is a great desideratum, but not the greatest.
Labour is best rewarded—other things being equal
—in the freest commercial communities. But other
things are not equal. Americans see that they
could not compete in manufactures against the
pauper labour of Europe, which produces an artifi-
cial inequality, in consequence of a false, oppres-
sive, artificial state of society in the Old
World. Free Trade would tend to perpetuate
this system in Europe they so condemn. If
abundance of labour be supplied to the
population of European countries, emigration
would be checked, and the artificial system now in
force preserved. America would become the gra-
nary and raw-material-producing country for the
mills and workshops of Europe. The political
economists of Europe say this is what America ought
to be—what the true principles of political economy
say she must be. But it is precisely what the
American people say they won't be. It is better,
on the whole, for the country as a whole to have
Protection or Free Trade. That is—putting the
question to an individual—will you buy your clothes
and tools cheap, or encourage home manufactures
by buying them dear? Do you wish the country
to be reduced to the production of raw materials
only—cotton, grain, tobacco, sugar, wool, beef, and
pork, a purely agricultural country ; or one with a
diversified interest of manufactures and agriculture?
The citizens of the Union have answered that " We
"are ready to protect our larger interest against
" our little needs and cravings. We see and know
" the price we pay for such legislation ; but we see
" also our gain as a nation. As individuals we of
" this generation suffer, that the nation may secure
"in the future the ends we have in view. As a
" people, we seek something better than to get all
"we can and keep all we get." " The bulwark of
" Protection in America," says the Spectator,
commenting on this letter, " is a belief diffused
" among the whole ruling class of freeholders that
" without it America would assume her natural posi-
" tion as a great producing country occupied by a
" single class, while they want it to be occupied by
" many—would become a country of simple civilisa-
" tion, while they want it to be one of complex.
" Society would be natural, whereas they want it
"to be highly artificial. The Americans are all
" wrong, as wrong as women would be who, assert-
" ing that dress can aid beauty, drew thence the
" deduction that tight lacing and art in dress were
" naturally indispensable. Protection no more
" multiplies the forma of industry or of social life.
" than confinement in a pipe multiplies the ripples
"of a stream." But what about diverting the
stream, with regard to the ripples? If a portion of the
stream itself be turned aside, the ripples of the stream
will certainly be lessened. Americans assert that
Protection, as applied to their country, fosters nume-
rous paths of industry,insures to workmen high wages,
and thus draws from Europe the uuder-paid artisans,