The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-04-10
n.oteotion-Free Trade.

r. a while we read in GREELEf's
- that England, OF. Canada, or some
III ~ country, is suffering from Tree
t"ade." That paper teaches that the United
states, Great Britain, France, Germany
Russia, Spain, Italy, and all other 'ou''-
tries. can make themselves prosperous "
snr one Of them refusing to buy the pio'
ducts Of any other Of them, n oy ~
tccting home industry" VINO "o"io ~
benefited if every nation in the "o'i'
should refuse to purchase a single artric
not raised or produced AT nome we '.n"
for our lives imagine. ihere ~ ho'"'
productive in protection. AT best 1t Gu
only keen of competition by lcVyinSa pro-
h,n;tory tariff upon articles which Woulo
otherwise be cheapened by that compeu-
,;on We can understand how one coun.
try might perhaps be benefited by q pro-
~tsc,;ve tariff, if no other country had one,
lust as we can understand that the mar
who saves all his money will grow rich ;
hut we cannot understand how protective
tariff, could benefit q dozen countries
simultaneously, nor how stinsy men would
grow rich if all men were equally stlngy.
JoAS SIXTH may, Of course, grow rich
at the expense Of JOHN BROWN II
BROWN will continue to buy OF him II
pay him for his goods but SMITH would
hardly grow rich at Browns expense
il Brown were to attempt to play SMITHS
own game-that is, take more money
from SMITH than he returned 10
him. So free trade might possibly
cause England to suffer. or the
United States to suffer, or France, if only
the one country adhered to the damaging
policy {; but how it can possibly damage all
of them, it would take u Philadelphia law
yer to explain. For the assertion that free
trade can simultaneously damage three
countries say England, France, and the
United States, anu letting these three stand
for all the countries in the world-amounts
to this :
First. That we of the United States are
damaged because we allow France and
England to undersell our own manufacture.
ers or producers. We send money abroad
which ought to be kept at home, and thus
impoyerish u WI people. We buy arti.
cles abroad which could just as well be
made at home, and thus take work out OF
the hands Of our home mechanics and bread
out of their mouths.
But, secondly. France is damaged be.
cause she allows England and the United
States to undersell her own manufacturer
or producers. She sends money abroad
which ought to be kept at home, and thus
tnroverishes her own people. She buys
articles abroad which could just as well be
made at home, and thus takes work out of
the hands of her home mechanics and bread
out of their mouths.
And, thirdly. England is damaged be-
cause she, too, follows the same course.
Now, it il selt-cridCnt that I'll these pro-
positions cannot be true. II England buys
our productions and manufactures, and
France buys hers or ours, or both buy ours,
and we buy from both, we come out IN the
end just as well and rs rich us if neither
bought anything from the other.
Apply the tariff to the mechanic him
self instead of to the articles he makes, and
the absurdity Of GREELEY's idea will be ap-
parent. If Congress were to pass Il law re-
curing every English mechanic who should
come to this country to pay a dollar a day
for the privilege Of working in this coun.
try, such a law might keep up wages here
and help to enrich the native mechanic,
since no English mechanic would work un-
less there were at least a dollar per day diff.
ference between the average wages Of me-
clianics III England and America. Aud if
that difference did exist in favor Of our me-
cbanies, it is evident that England would
derive no benefit from q similar law, since
no American mechanic would 20 where he
would receive that sum less per day than
he could make at home. The same rule
will hold good as to the articles manufac-
tured by the mechanic for if they are
made more cheaply in England than here
a protective tariff could not benefit the
English maker, though one might, and pro-
badly would, benefit our mechanics. The
protectiorist, then, who claims hat free
trade with America Injuries England, and
free trade with England also Injuries Amer
lea, lays down two totally Inconsistent pro.
positions. One or the other is necessarily
untrue. We leave it to Mr.. GREELEY and
his disciples to say whether either Is true.