The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-29
sPTRIT OF THp PRESS.
editorial Opinions ofths Leading Journals
upon Current Topics-compiIed Every
DAY for the Evening Telegraph
THE BLIND WHO WILL NOT SEE.

lenged it, we recently expressed our convc-
ton that universal free trade woald not con-
duce to general good; and we cited, as one
reason for our faith, the statement recently
put forth by merchant of this city, in Bit
terly anti protectonist trade circular, that the
copper miners of this country, finding them
selves burdened and embarrassed with stock
of eighteen millions of pounds of their pro-
duct, shipped three millions thereof to
Europe. sold it there at three cents per pound
loss, and thereby so cleared aud quickened
their home market that they sold the remain
ing fifteen millions of pounds at profit
Now we do not know that the facts are pre-
cisely as above stated but il is clear that they
might be- and we hold it not best for man
kind that the producers of one country be
enabled and virtually melted thus to avert
from their own heads and impose upon
others the baleful consequences of their own
miscalculations We hold it preferable that
each tub should stand on its own bottom.
The World twists the facts, after the fashion
of its election bulletins of ca and '67, and
makes them read as follows
The Tribune objects TO absolute free trade,o on the
ground that 1t would inevitably bring rregularity of
employment and depression Of wages by the tossing
about among nations OF surplus products. But the
instance which 1t parades proves That such use OF
sy snrn gu OF the amercsn
was no fruit OF free trade They were so protected
that they looked only to the home market producing
a surplus of copper by their over-estimate of its
capacity. This took place under duty on copper
which gave them monopoly of the domestic mar
ket. A tarih therefore, is no prUphylactc against
gluts. How they worked OFF the gut is the only
point we need consider. II England and other ma
tions had had high tariff against American copper,
the American miners might have been unable to
dispose of their surplus at all. 1t is obvious that
free trade elsewhere aided IN relieving the glut SO
the 1rfbunes argument against free trade is shaken
by Its own Illustration"
Certain persons-to wit, our American
miners of copper-seem to have produced too
AlNANs L. L.. a.
could sell at fair, living price. If there was
error or mistake in the premises, it was
purely their own. It seems to us, therefore,
that they should have borne the penalty; lust
as our farmers must, if they happen to run to
corn or potatoes so as to produce in some
seasons more than there is demand for; just
as our anthracite miners must, when they
produce more coal than the consumers want
or will buy. But copper is worth twenty to
twenty five cents per pound, whereas corn is
worth but two cents, potatoes one, and coal
two or three mills: so copper will bear ex-
portation to a far greater extent than corn,
potatoes or coal. And, finding certain great
European markets open to them, our copper
men Git is stated relieved themselves from
their self caused embarrassment at the cost
of other people. We Judge it not best to
perpetuate and increase the facilities for so
doing.
The World asserts that the protective sys-
tenn does not prevent over -production-''is
no prophylactic against gluts." Who said it
was What we proved was, that protection
strongly tends to con6ne the evils resulting
from glut to those responsible for its pro-
duction. Had other nations protected as we
do, our copper men must have eaten the
fruit of their own doing. Free trade in
Europe enabled them to palm it off upon
others, and thus tempted them to repeat
their error by saddling others with its
penalty. This we deprecate, and prefer to
limit rather than extend. Hence we adyo-
cate protection.
But hear the World further
"Of course, the American copper-mners never
intended to produce their metal ror the foreign
market, IN which they could sell it only at loss.
as ne1 snd 0r the home
market by the surplus, they got rid OF it as bestthey
could. The result was that the American con-
sumers paid five cents more a pound for copper
than it worth in the open markets of the world.
The difference between the three cents loss at which
they sold copper abroad, and the two cents profit
under the tari1 at home, makes five cents difference
between the foreign and domestic price. When the
cents a pound cheaper than American consumers.
Such is one of the beauties Of protection"
1t was free trade not protection, that ena-
bled the copper men thus to dispose of their
surplus. Had protection been general, they
must have sold their entire product in the
home market, precisely as our potato growers
as it would bring. They saved themselves Qf
the statement be accurate) at the expense of
their European brethren; the former commit
ting the fault, the latter receiving the pun
ishment. Protection would have ordered
otherwise.
Free traders habitually assume that what
ever we can produce as cheaply as others
needs no projections yet here we see that it
is not SO. Europe produces copper at least as
cheaply as we do; yet it was the interest of
our copper men to derange and depress her
markets by underselling, for time, her pro-
ducers. So it has been, SO it will be, with
foreign surpluses pitched upon our markets.
What our copper men are said to have done
in q single case has been done by European
holders of metals, wares, and fabrics, to our
prejudice in hundredssof instances, and will
be in thousands, if free trade be again our
policy We stand for the producers of all
countries, but especially of our own. The
policy which sets the industry of one people
to cutting the throat Of tie kindred industry
of other nations is neither wise nor humane.
II is not ''the American SYSTEM" and, we
trust, will never be.
GOVERNOR HOLDENS IMPEACHMENT
From the n. Y. World.
That nasty tenderness which fondles the
poor, dear murderer, and says the ravisher
has been only too acutely moved by emotions
capable of making him a grandsire in Israel
If you let him go, is at work to defend Gov
ernor Holden, of North Carolina, against the
articles of impeachment exhibited against
him by the Legislature of that State as a