The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-02-24

Prof. A. L.. Perry OF Williams Colege
has come before the public again in the adj
vocacy of free trade. He addressed the
young mems free trade association of Boston
the other night upon the "~prejudices
against free trade" Prof. Perry is a writer
upon his favorite subject, and was made
somewhat conspicuous in 1869 and 1870 by
his public debates with Horace Greeley, the
first in Boston, and the second In New
York. Some allowance, perhaps, should be
made for the views held by Prof. Perry
regarding his opponent, who was the
great advocate and defender of protection.
The professor cordially admits the honesty
and integrity of Mr.. Greeley, but thinks he
was the victim of ~prejudices. He further
believes that Mr.. Greeley was really ignor-
ant, a very bold allegation, of the motives
and methods of the men who procured the
enactment of the protection duties. They
did not let him into their secrets, says Pro-
lessor Perry. The charge ofignorance about
subjects on which Mr.. Greeley undertook to
write is about the last one hat a careful per-
son would make. Mr.. Greeley was a persist.
ent, determined protectionist. The reason
need not be discussed, though it should
be sought for in the particular aspect of the
times and trade of the country when he
came upon the stage of politics from 1880 to
1910. The allegation of Mr.. Greeley's pre-
judice was, however, a convenient ntroduc-
ton to the topic of Prof. Perry's lecture. he
made four points: That free trade is not un-
favorable to the revenue of the nation, TO
the manufactures, the agriculture nor the
independence of the nation. Under the first
point he insisted with emphasis that Tree
trade men, so called, so far as he was advised,
90 not oppose the raising of revenue by a
system of customs duties levied on a few
articles of general consumption, which are
wholly imported from abroad and not produc-
ed at home. This is a distinct question from
hat of protection, and does not enter into
the controversy at all. The direct and sim
pie issue made by the speaker is, that pro-
lection, in every form and degree of it,
please God, shall go down." He showed,
as has often been shown before, that the
protective duties on many articles, as on
ships, for instance, is a practical prohibi-
ton. As to the effect on manufactures, he
shows that very many of the largest
manufacturers admit that protection does
not benefit them at all, and that the num-
Der OF such is increasing. His argument
on the effect of protection upon
agriculture is very strong. There
were in 1870 one hundred and thirty
five less cotton factories in this
country than in 1860, and the amount of cot
ton manufactured was p, OOO, 900 pounds less.
The notion that protection moves manufac
lures west to the farmers is exploded by the
facts. The center OF manufactures has not
moved FIVE miles farther west in ten years
By a tariff the price may be directly raised OF
all which the farmer has to buy, but the
price of what he has to sell can not be thus
raised. The argument that free trade does
not degrade the national independence is
equally strong, but of less ,practical impor
lance. The speaker stated that ffty-two pei
cent of the people in this country are farm
ers. They have resolved to take their two
political parties, one in each hand, and shake
thom as a dog shakes a w~oodchuck, and hi
was glad of it.