The New York herald., 1869-10-12
FREE TRADE VERSUS PROTECTION.
Discussion Between Horace Greeley and Pro-
lessor Perry at Music Hall, In Boston.

Discussion Between Horace Greeley and Pro-
fessor Perry at Music Hall, in Boston.
BOSTON, Oct. II, 1862
There was fair audience in Music Hail TO hear
the discussion OF Tree trade aud protection between
Professor Perry ana Horace Greeley. the Professor
opening the discussion by SAYING
The subject OF free trade, separated from those
other subjects when are often thrown around II TO
confuse IL, makes 1t appeal 10 common sense and
relies on the healthy assent which II never fails TO
elicit from unprejudlced understandings. Free
trade cannot be confounded with the subject OF tax
alton. Free trade has nothing to object TO any
form OF legitimate taxation not even 70 customs
duties which laid solely and wisely as taxes.
But we assert that nothing else but taxation shall
nae r araer cover o, saxs;r ,hat all taxes snail
shall get all that the people are made TO
pay; and that these taxes shall be open and above
board. calcuable even II 0nerous or new; but be
honest, anyhow. The only source from which taxes
can possibly be paid is the gains or the peoples
exchanges. As a great tax collector government
Is interested in having the exchanges OF the people
as numerous ana ~ profitable as possible, 30 thas
the fractions OF the gains which 1t takes to itself IN
taxes shall be as large rs possible. ANY interference
with trade made necessary by considerations OF
pubic health, such as quarantine, police reguIa-
latons stopping the renting OF unit houses or the
sale OF UNIT food, has nothing whatever in conflict
with the doctrine OF free trade. No tax law
restraints nor health restraints nor restraints that
can De defended Oh the score OF public morals do we
attack. We attack ana. Cod Wiling shall overthrow
those other restraints IN trade that claim for them
selves an economical benefit; tat profess to be able
TO work the financial miracle Of making profitable
the stoppage OF profitable commerce; that dare not
appear among the people In their own nature az re-
straints, but wrench word out OF honest English
with which to cover up their nature that would not
stand minutes chance under an appropriate de-
signati0n, but steal INTO the fold "a wolf sneeps
Clothing" under the designation or protection
Let that word IN that DO forever accursed be-
cause IL IS fraud, because IL Is lie; because 1t
steas the livery OF heaven to serve the devil IN"
Every trade Involves two persons and virtually only
two, each Of whom tenders to The other something
for the sake OF receiving from him something more
highly esteemed. Each person has satisfied want
oil the otner and has had his own want satisfied
A natural variety OF desires, OF capacities, OF
opportunities among men introduced these ex.
changes at the beginning OF society," and they inde.
nnteiy multiply as society progresses. IL 10 Gods
Will, as thus expressed that hen shall trade, and
trade increasingly. SO natural Is II to trade so artl
fcial ana inpertnent are RESTRICTIONS that the sys
TEN Of socalled "protectionn Was never heard OF
the ancient world. frotectlon is very modern de-
lusiOn. The gifted Greek never lighted upon 1t,
even In his speculations; the practical Romans-as
good cillzens as ever lived, whose armies con-
quered the world and whose laws held 1t con-
quered-neyer thought OF 1t; the cities OF the Middle
Ages grew rich in ignorance OF 1t. The Athenians,
indeed sometimes forbade the export OF figs ana
the Romans sometimes OF coin, and the Middle
Ages had their guilds but any system OF protection
applied TO foreign trade W as not theirs. The Greek
tarln levied five, and the Roman tive and alter
wards two and half per centum, for revenue. Pro-
lection, properly, began IN the English NayIga-
ton law OF 1860, ana III the French tars OF Colbert
oil about the same decade Protection Is 200 years
old, rather would be If the nation that developed
II had not long since cast II OIL In scorn, acknow-
edlng its folly IN adopting H. and Its perpetual loss
In maintaining II. France where the people do not
govern. sl clings IN part and feebly to the system.
Belgium and Germany have hung lt to the winds.
and even Russia Is about relaxing Its commercial
fetters. So natural s 1t to trade that no one
thinks OF applying restrictions within the coun-
try itself. Massachusetts exchanges products
with Louisiana without let or htadrance. Why
should not Vermont with CANADA The benefits OF
an exchange depend in no degree upon the accident
that the parties 10 1t ctzens Of the same coun.
try. IL is just as natural TO trade with foreigner,
provided he wants to trade with you. as with
fellow citizen, ana there Is no more tendency to
bring you to his level, up or down. But the theory
OF protection thrusts itself In and says You shalt
not take those commodities OF foreigners at the
cheap rate at which they offer them to you. II you
take them you must pay for them great deal more
than The owners ask ior them, a great deal more
than they are worth In free market; and
this not for the sake OF taxation, but
IN order tnat certain other parties may have
chance to sell similar commodities at higher
fgure.n Protection is nothing under heaven but an
eXpedent TO make what Is naturally cheap articlaly
dear. Protection necesstates loss; loss begins the
moment protection begins, and continues until pro-
lection euds. Let us suppose free trade to exist.
1t does compel anybody to trade with foreigners;
II does not even recommend anybody to trade with
foreigners IL simply allows body 70 trade with
foreigners provided he finds IL profitable TO do so.
Nature herself makes 1t easier ana better for him to
trade with fellow citizens by throwing usually
greater cost OF transportation across the path OF
foreign trade, and 1t IL only when decided gain
can be realized after meeting the extra cost OF
transportation that foreign traic comes into beng
native, finding o market for his commodity
with the former, and the foreigner ind
ing q market LOT Ills COIUmOuLy WIN the
native, with profit accruing to both, for govern
ment to thrust IN protective duty, shuhlng the
foreign out. and, what Is the same thing, shutting
the native in, IS to destroy an otherwise inevitable
gam. Gain destroyed Is loss incurred, and the loss
Is an uncompensated oss-a dead loss. Besides,
thereIare the interruption OF the play OF natural
laws, the disturbance OF tue existing channels OF
trade, the immense expense OF surveillance OF snug
Cling, the thousand and one yexattons and precau-
tons that make merchants say as one lately said to
me. ''The government treats US as II we were q
set OF banditti" The aggregate OF the motives to
production Is necessarily diminished by the stimulus
which has been applied to one part; but the vital
force to stimulate with having been Withdrawn
from other parts the stimulus itself is soon
exhausted. PROJECTED interests are always clamOr-
GUS for more protection. We have had eleven differ
ent acts 1851, and are already threatened with
another, and what could we expect but losses from
a system that Processes to be wiser than nature Is;
that claims to De able to lay burdens SO cunningy
that the burdens themselves become positive pro-
ductive agent-somethlng to be put on Q level with
labor and capital; that thinks 1t can apportion the
motives and distribute the rewards OF industry bet
has outved the folly OF protection has cknowledged
at length that 1t was losing system for It from
rs last England did asn. not abandon hsanns
se''' She had found 1t so profitable thai
she could at last dispense with It, but because the
thinkers who were allowed TO guide her public
action had demonstrated that protection was always
o loss and always would be, and because practically,
in accordance with those demonstrations there was
an increasing deficit III her annual budget which her
statesmen did not know how TO cover, but which
was covered under the lead OF Robert Peel, who was
U
increasing through remission OF duties. We raise
less than i've dollars per capita by our tariff; Eng
land raises over four without protection anu without
complaint. The second fundamental objection to
protection Is that 1t violates natural right OF pro-
pery. The right OF property is nothng but the right
TO sell. Nothing Is property that cannot be sold,
and everything is property that can be bought.
The right OF property Is . natural right; tnat IS
TO say, o man has natural right to sell whatever
property is his own, whether 1t be service or CON-
modify. II q nation Will not buy II cannot SELL
since buying and selling Is reciprocal act. Now,
law that makes II more difficult for man to sell his
property robs him OF that property. II is property
only as he can sell II. III he is now obliged To
sell 1t for less part OF his property Is des-
troyed. But protective duties are designed to pro-
hibit citizens from selling in the dearest market and
to compel them TO sell In cheaper market. They
are designed to cut on part OF foreign commodities
which would otherwise be offered In exchange Tor
a part or our own commodities, ana thus these
commodities lose their best market: that Is,
they lose part OF their value; that Is, their
owners lose part OF they property. Government
may take millions IN the form OF honest taxes, but
never with our consent one fraction OF any mans