New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-14

uronO and the old ones right; on that point we
trust we shall in all cases be open to the force
Of reason. But surely it is poor sort OF arsu-
mert 70 show that the old and new are not pro-
ciseIv the same; and we must add that though
Tn, Era seems to have entered upon II with
great eusto and with the industry which Is us
lsu5able habit in all discussions, 1t might
have been engaged in more useful and ediiying
labors.
With regard to the Turkish question our po-
sition is. we think, very clear one. Inc des'
tiny of the Turks is to be deprived OF the Gov
eminent of that extensive and very rich country
which for some centuries they have controlled.
1t must pass from them at any rate; and the
question is whether il shall be held by France
and England. either in their own name or IN
the name of one or more dependent Governments,
or by Russia. Now in settling this question we
have nothing TO DO with the origin or the justice
Of the war; that belongs to history, and our con-
Germ is simply with the alternative before u.s.
Looking at this, we say that it is for the inter
est of the inhabitants of that country and OF the
world at large that it should 60 into the hands
Of Russia. Here again, the reason is simple
and a perfectly practical one. II Is cur opin-
ion that the extension over Turkey 0f tne
Russian system will far more rapidly aud surely
raise its people to real freedom, and Will do
more for the freedom of the people OF other
countries and for the progress OF the world at
large. than the establishment there of any sys-
tenn which France and England will tolerate
AID favor. 1t will have this effect, quite In
dependently of merely political arrangements,
as we have often explained, by developing
the now utterly stagnant and unlmproVed
resources of the country, increasing Its
population, securing to them active employ
ment and good wages, and thus raising
them out of Slavery, such as they now exist in,
toward an independent and progressive cons-
ton. That the system of France and England
will have the opposite effect to this seems 70 Us
altogether clear, because it has always done SO;
for. as far as the industrial relations and the
work and wages of the masses go, any poilticai
changes they are likely 30 introduce VIII IN no
wise be allowed to have any influence. Inc ola
British Free-trade policy of keeping the people
of Turkey in the degraded position OF producers
Of raw materials for the Western markets, de-
pepdent on the Allies for all manufactured arti-
cles is sure to be preserved. This is policy
as ample experience demonstrates, which re-
suits in nothing but Slavery to its subjects. IL
also prevents their gaining strength from for
eign immigration, and indeed tends to make
them poorer and more degraded instead OF free
and progre ssive people.
Ii. a. . ba of thls matter
as it appears to us. If The Era caa shed any
new light upon it, we shall be duly grateful,
and shall not be withheld from accepting 1t be-
cause we do not now happen to see it. But our
contemporary will allow us to observe that 1t
makes, unintentionally no doubt, very gross
misstatement of the spirit in which we view
the matter. We extract from its article Of
June Ia:
"The principle which lies at the root of the deec
lions of The Tribune from the truly liberal course, is
s intracable devotion 10 the doctrine OF Protection
Earnest in IFS advocacy Of free labor is ever trucu-
lent in its championship of ali ensaved trade IL IL
willing that a man should work when and where he
please unwilling that he should buy and sell when
ana where he pleases To the individual would il leave
the disposition of his labor, but for Government
claims the right to regulate the disposition OF IT.
| products
If The Era had read THE TRIBUNE on the
doctrine of Protection with half the diligence
that it has exhibited in hunting up aud studying
oar many articles on the Turkish question for
| The past two years or more, it would hardly
have made such a statement as the above. Once
for all, then, we repeat what we have said often
enough before, that ace are PrOteetionstS because
ue are Free-traders. Free trade is feature of
that superior state of society in which we bs-
lieye, and toward which the world gra iually
advances; and Protection is one means, and
under certain circumstances a necessary and
even indispensable means, ofpreparing for Free
trade and rendering it practicable. Aud as to
the talk of our contemporary about our contend
ing for "an enslaved trade" and the rest, it
will allow US in all courtesy to retOrt every one
Of those imputations upon itself and its system.
1t is that delusiOn called British Free trade,
advocated by The Era, which aims at universal
monopoly and the abolition of all industrial and
CONN ercial liberty; while Protection, on the
other hand, aims to bring into full and mature
play the peculiar resources and talents of each
nation and country to shield from invasion and
wrong their early and feeble efforts in the
career of industry, and thus to prepare by uni
versal development and universal independence
for the advent Of universal and genuine Free
trade.