New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-12-28
TIE BLIND WHO WILL NOT SEE

| The Cincinnati Commercial having challenged
it, we recently expressed our conviction that
| Universal Free Trade would not cOnduce to
| general good and we cited, as one reason for
our faith, the statement recently put forth by
merchant of this City, in a bitterly anti
| ProectiOnist Trade Circular. that the Copper
miners of this country, finding themselves
burdencd and embarrassed with stock of
Eighteen Millions Of pounds of their product,
shipped Three Millions thereof to Europe,
sold it there ut three cents per
pound loss, and thereby so cleared and
quickened their Home Market that they
sold the remaining Fifteen Millions of pounds
at profit. Now We do not know that the
facts are precisely as above stated but it is
clear that they might be and we hold it not
best for mankind that the producers Of one
county be enabled and virtually melted thus to
avert from their own heads and impose upon
others the baleful consequences of their own
miscalculatons. We hold it preferable that
each tub should stand OH its own bottom.
| The World twists the facts, after the fashion
Of its Election bulletins of "a and GS, and
makes them read as follows:
"TnE TRIBUNE objects to absolute Fee Trade, on the
ground that it would inevitably bring ITegnlarity Of
employment and oppression OF wages by tho tossing
about among nations OF surplus products. But tbo in.
which it paraies proves that such use OF sur
puses may equally made under the Protecti1esystem
The surplus Of the American coppermners was no fruit
Of Free Trade They prot sced that they looked
only home market, producing surplus % copper
by their Oycr-esmae Of its capacity. This took place
under duty Copper which gave them monopoly OF
the domestic market. tariff therefore, is no psophy-
Tactic against gluts. How they WORKED of the giut Ia
mo only rnirt We England other
nations had had "a high tariR against American Copper,
;he American might lave been unable TO dispose
of their eureus at all 1t is ObvcTs that Free Trade
elsewhere aided In relieving tho eut. So THE TRBUSL'5
argument against Free Trade eeaken BY its own illus
tTatiGu." 800 49,
Comments by The Trib1sae.
Certain persous-tO wit, o,,r American miners
Of Copper-seem TO have produced too much
Copper: that IL to say, more THAI they could
sell at fair, living price. II there was error
or mistake in the premises, il was purely their
own 1t seems TO us, therefore that they
should have borne the penalty just as our
farmers must if they happen to run TO Corn
or Potatoes sc as to produce in some seasons
more than shere is demand for; just as our
Anthracite miners must, when they produce
more Coal thal the consumers want or will
buy. But Copper is worth 20 tc Is cents per
pound, whereas Corn is worth but 2 cents,
Potatoes j, and Coal 2 or 3 .mills so Copper
will bear expectation to !, far greater extent
than Corr. Potatoes or Coal. And, finding
certain grsat European markets open to them,
our COppen men Gt is stated relieved them
selves from their self-causcd 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-
TEN dOSs not prevent productions is no
prOpbylaetic against gluts.n Who said it
was Z What We proved WAS, that Protection
strongly tends to cOnfne tho 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 ex-
tend. Hence we advocate Protection.
But hear The World further:
"Of course, the American Coppcr-mners never In
tended to produce their metal for the foreign market
which they could sell 1t only at loss Protection smu-
lated production for the home Market and. lest
they should break tho homo market by surplus
they got nd of it rs they could The result that
the American consumers paid five cents pound
for Copper than Il worth in the open markets Of the
world The difference between the three cents loss at
which they sold Copper abroad and the two cent, profit
under the Tariff at home. makes five cents difference be-
tween the foreign and the price When the gut
came foreigners got American Copper five cents pound
cheaper than American consumers. Such is VI tho
! beauties OF Protection
Comments By The Tribune.
Ii was Free Trade, not Protection, that en-
sblcd 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 Us our potato growers
and coal-minsrs do, and accepted such prices
as it would bring. They saved themselves at
| the statement bs accurately at the expense oil