The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-09
FREE TRADE In BoSTON-TWENTY-
FIVE YEARS AGO.

together with the accompanying communication,
taken from the New York Evening Post. When
we gave the proceedings of the anti-protecton meet
ing, held in Boston in the year 1890, we intended
certainly not the slightest injustice to Mr., Apple
ton, or to any oflhe other gentlemen whose names we
found appended TO the free-trade report and reso-
u,ions submitted and adopted at that meeting.
The free-trade committee of the meeting was COM
posed of men who are now the proectonist leaders
in Boston, Among these found the names Of
Daniel Webster, Abbott Lawrence, and Nathan
| Appleton. II now seems that Mr.. Appleton's
name used upon that occasion without his
| knowledge or consent But il was so used,
| certainly, by his friends and neighbors, his
compeers in businessmen, like HIMSELF well
| known, and Of great consideration in the com
| muny More than this: Mr.. Appletons name
was 80 put forward on the free-trade list by
| these gentlemen IN eOnneIion with their own
names. All this certainly shows very clearly what
| opinions he was rsp,asd then to hold, whether he
| did in fact hold them or not
We must be permitted further to say that tho ex-
tracts cited by Mr. Appleton from his communlea
ton to the Boston Daily Advertiser do not seem
to show that he was then very Jealous for the doc.
raj about the morality of the operatives in factories
&c, might very well consist with strong PARTIAL
| ty for freedom of trade. III owever this may be,
| the proceedings Of the meeting, given by US,
fully establish the position which we sought to
| tabsh. They show that the present protectionist
leaders in Boston were orthodox free-traders in
1920. Whether MIR. Appleton was little prsma-
urely bitten with that protection heresy which cir
cumstances have since made the established creed of
Massachusetts,, is amattcr ofno great moment Il
leaves the main proposition still indisputable. We
cheerfuly accord to MIR. Appleton all the benefit Of
his own explanation. We do this the more readily,
be- ause we think the desire to make such expa-
nation, in those who can make il, to be both natural
and proper
Bosros July 3, 1916.
| To the Editor Of the Union
In your paper Of the 18th ultimo, you charge me
with inconsistency on the subject of the protective
| system, IN which you do me injustice. must,
therefore, ask you TO set the matter right by repub-
fishing from the New York Evening Post com
municstion which made them in 1874 in relation to
| the same matter, and Of which annex copy.
N. APPLETON.
To The Editors Of the Ntp York Evening Post:
In your paper Of Sd instant, after publishing the
| proceedings Of a meeting IN Faneuil Hall, in the
year 1890, you add "0ur readers will be surprised
to observe amongst the names Of the committee who
reported these strong resolutions against protective
| tariff, those Of Nathan Appleton and Abbott Law
renee. Both those gentlemen looked at the question
with different eyes, in 1920, from those with which
| they now see IL, &c.
Since you think proper TO call on your readers to
be surprised at the appearance of my name in the
| above connexion, beg leave to set them and your
| selves right in the matter.
The fact is, that although my name appeared in
| that publication as one Of large committee which
was appointed at public meeting, never met with
them, and in no way whatever approved or assened
to the report made by subcommittee, nor to the
resolutions adopted at the adjourned meeting. So
| far from 1t, openly expressed my disapprobation
| of them, and published in the Daily Advertiser a
series of remarks in opposition to some of the views
expressed in that celebrated report. You may
| therefore relieve your readers from the "surprse"
into which you have thrown them far as am
concerned, and assure them that did not look upon
| the question in 1920 with eyes different from
| those which now use, as you have attributed to
me.
do not, however, claim any merit to myself
that had formed an opinion in favor of the intro
duction of manufactures at an earlier period than
many ofmy fellow-citizens, but as a matter Of fact
must beg leave 10 correct the error and which
have had occasion to do some previous occasions
IL Is undoubtedly true that the protective system
was forced upon Massachusetts, against her wishes
and against her opinions, which were founded on
merce. Her experience has changed these opn-
ions. She has freely devoted her capital and her
industry to manufactures, and has found in them
the surest basis of an increased commerce. She
protests against the change of a system which has
proved the foundation Of much prosperity to her
self and the whole country. 1t is not surprising
that former opinions, founded on theory adverse to
the protective system, should have yielded to the
full light of experience. The wonder, should say,
is, that gentlemen of intelligence like yourselves can
so long continue to shut their eyes to the benefcent
effects which this system has diffused through our
whole country. cannot see any merit in logged
adherence to mere theory against the light OF
perience. As a proof that nv own sentiments
have not materially changed on this subject, an
mex some extracts from article written by me,
and which was published in the Boston Daily Ad-
vertiser in February, 1891.
am, gentlemen, your obedent servant,
N. APPLETON.
BosToN, October 5, 1874.
Extracts referred TO.
"lth has been said and repeated until the unrehect
ing probably consider it an undisputed proposition,
that the tendency ofmanufactsring establishments is
70 make the rich richer and the poor poorer profit
able, indeed, to the master manufacturers but leav-
ing the laborers in hopeless poverty But ia this
true in faci' There is no occupation whatever
wherein SO much depends mechanical skill and
invention, and an acquaintance with the useful arts,
and In which the possessors OF them can compete
go successfully with the duler possessors of CAPT
tai In fact capital in this business can do nothing
but by forming a co-partnership with skill and in
dustry Compare It with the industry set in mo.
ton by commerce. Are the smiths and carpenters
employed in shipbulding in a situation to acquire
independence more readily than the ingenious me-
chanics employed in erecting cotton mills and in
making machinery Are the seamen employed in
navigating ships more of money saving race than
the young women who, by spending few wears in
these mills, lay up snug portion for the day of mar
riaget DO the operations of merchant consignng
ms ships to foreign merchant, require him to d.
vide a larger portion of his profits with those en-
ployed in carrying them into effect than the opera
tons OF manufacturer Every unprejudced mind
must answer these inquiries in the negative
Neither is there any better ground for the charge
of corruption of morals as necessarily connected
with manufacturing employment. The only areu-
ment by which this opinion ia supported, is drawn