New-York tribune., 1868-05-26
pPlTECTTON IN FRANCE.

An article upon France in the June number of
Putnanl'S Magazine gives glowing picture OF
the beauties of what the writer evidently sup
poses to be free trade treaty between En-
gland and France AS background to his
picture, he prefaces his story with dismal
view of the mutual blockade which he sup
poses to have sundered France from England
prior to the year 1856 The writer says: "Cen-
"turies of discOrd had so estranged the two
countries that the exports from France to
Great Britain had been less than the exporta-
4" ton of eggs alone under the late Convention"
The exports of France had averaged S1OOOOO.OO
in the period from 1925 to 1886, and had grown
to S3S0,000,000 in 1856, of which her exports to
Great Britain and the British Colonies amount
ed, in 1856, to $76 6726,O0O Now we beg to
inform PutnamS Magazine that it cannot
make the American public believe that, under
the CObden- Chevaer treaty, or any other,
France has exported S7G,7200O0 worth OF eggs
per annum to Great Britain. Why, Mr.
Putnam, this is twenty dozen eggs per annum
for every man, woman and child in the British
Islands, or nearly an egg a day for each all the
year round. Tell this tale to the starving
millions of Great Britain, who no more think
of tasting eggs than of dining upon mamma or
ambrosia! The following extract is uninten-
tionally funny, when viewed as an attempt at
argument: During the first quarter OF the
"present century, France admitted wool free
"of duty; but when cotton, at the close OF this
"period fell one-half under the great increase
"of the crops of America, tCOOt teH also; and
"France, at the instance of the agricultural
"interest, imposed duty on wool of 80 per
"cent Under this duty, rOOl declined still more;
"and in 1851 fallen below two francs per
"kilogramme, when the duty lcas repealed, and
"the price of ,cool ddrdnced 25 per cent. France
produces more cloth than she consumes; but
"she cannot draH herself Of foreign markets for
"her surplus, unless she opens her ports TO Tool,
"and gives her clOthierS a chance to buy as cheap
"aS other nations, May not the United States
profit by her lesson9 Have We not depressed
"wool in the same manner, by imposing pro-
"hibitory duties since the war, and cutting of
ga lucrative trade in which we sent out flour,
fish, furniture, and domestic cottOns and re-
"ceived coarse wool from the tiOcks that
"graze, Summer and Winter, on the great
"plains of the La Plata?'
Here it is first asserted that putting duties on
wool made wool cheap, and then that, IN order
that French manufacturers may have cheap
wool. they must take off all tariffs. Now If
putting on duties lowers the price of wool, as
the author asserts, then the best way for the
manufacturers TO get cheap wool is to keep a
high protective tariff on the raw material.
Nor does the amount which France can sell TO
foreign countries depend in the slightest de-
gree on the amount she buys Of them, but
solely on whether she can sell cheaper than
others. If she can, they must buy of her, though
she may not have bought a sous worth from
anybody Such loose assertions may be ex-
pected from one who coolly speaks of the
French or English tariffs as illustrations of
Free Trade
A tariff is protective not in proportion as it
is indiscrmnately high, but in proportion as
it is low on those products which the country
cannot produce, and must have, and high on
those which it can produce, and the impOrta-
ton of which turns its own labor out OF en-
plOyment. We have, for instance tariff of
2J cents p ID on Tea, which, though very
high, is in no degree protective, because we do
not attempt to produce tea. The Protectionist
doctrine pure and simple would say, Make tea
free. So of the tax of cents u 10 on Coffee,
Is to 3j per cent. on Tin, and 35 to go per cent
Oh Silks, and 10 TO IL cents y ID on Pepper
None of these articles being produced here, the
principle of Protection is violated by these
tariffs. 1t is equally violated by the impOrta-
tion of school books and ice free; for we can
produce both these articles in infinite abund-
ance So when our tariff allows onions, which
we produce to any extent, to come in under
duty of 10 per cent, while charging 25 per cent
- 4 .l,,.A tl.a
principle of Protection is again violated But
when plated manufactures, which we can pro-
duce, are charged the very moderate tariff of
35 per cent dd UdlOrem, there is some pr0tec-
ton, but by no means so electual as the
French duty, under the sO-called Free Trade"
tariff of Sl95 As per tun; for the latter is absO
lutely prohibitory. The raw materials of Brit
ish Industry consist of food, cotton, WOOL coal,
and IRON The two last she has in inexhaust-
ible supply. Food, cotton, and wool she must
import, or her operatives must starve; and
hence she throws open her ports TO them, be-
cause this is essential to her manufactures.
She adopts free trade to just the extent needed
to protect and develop her industry, and from
rs well-considered national selfshness as we
demand Protection
France has small but inadequate supply of
iron. We have it in abundant natural sup
plies. The principle of Protection hardly
justifes France in levying any tariff at all
Oh iron, while il would call for n high tariff
thereon in the United States. Accordingly,
France levies duty of only 81 80 per tun on
pig iron, to our duty of 80 per TINA differ
ence which is more than neutralized by the
higher money cost of American labor For,