New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-07
4 LITTLE PLAIN Truth .IBOIT SILK
DTTJES


The more paradoxical, incomprehensible, and
self-cOntradictOry a proposition can he made,
the more likely it is to be seized upon by
many persons as a principle OF Political Econ
omy. For example, such maxims as these
L" Protection does not protect amt Inc
"more inducements we extend 10 the
"forcign manufacturer OF gwen article
"tO enter our market, the more VIII
"the home manufacturer flourish are
specimen doctrines. These paradOxes have
been maintained and are maintained i'll so
many words to this day by many
of the Free Traders of this country.
Down to 1925 the prevailing system for the
regulation of commerce in the various States
of Europe, England included, was that OF pro-
hibitiOns and monOpolies; that is to say, the
foreign article was completely excluded from
lawful commerce. That system is entirely dlf-
fcrcnt from the competitive Protective system
which has been established in the United
States, yet nothing is more common among
the opponents of the American system than to
confuse the two and to apply to Protcctionists
a score of epithets which are entirely IL
relevant to the questions at issue
Both the errors above defined run through
Free Trade Journals to which the detection of
enormous frauds in the importation of silk
goods has given rise. The treatise entitled "a
National System of Political Economy" by
Frederick List, with a preliminary essay and
notes by the late Stephen COlwell of Phlladel-
phia, is generally accepted as good authority
for the principles held 10y Protectionists in
the United States. From page 800 of that
treatise We make the following quotation:
CAS- q general rule it may be said, that
"a country in which branch of manufacture
"cannot succeed with the aid of a protection
"of from forty to Sirty per cent at the begin
ching, and sustain itself afterwards with frcnfy
d" or THIRTY, does not possess the essential con-
editions of a manufacturing industry" Upon
this passage Mr. COlwell remarks in foot
note that "thc rates named must be more than
"suAicicnt in most cases. We propose to ap-
DIV this dictum of Lists 10 the silk manuiac
lures of Great Britain, the history of which
down to 1860 has been garblcd and perverted
for the purpose of maintaining the paradoxes
mentioned at the beginning of this article.
In 1926, through the efforts of Mr.. IIuskis
son, the British Government, i'll the case of
the silk manufacture, abolished the Pro-
hibitory or Monopoly system and established
the Protective system, with dd r0Iorcm duties
of thirty per cent, which rate. it will be OBJ
served, corresponds to the maximum allowed
by Prof. List, the silk manufacture having
been well established III England as far back
as the reign of Elizabeth. Between a total
prohibition of the foreign article and pro-
tcctive duty there is obviously difference.
Our Tariff is not intended to prohibit importa-
ton, and it is palpabc that it has no such
effect. 1t has been represented that in 1926
Great Britain, in the matter of duties on
silks, passed from Protective system TO Free
Trade. We content to let the real nature
of the change be stated 10y Mr. Huskisson him
self, and how he understood it will appear
from the following extract from his speech in
the House of Commons on Feb. "a, 1926:
l to the real jet Of the silk question and
which, say II with all due Difference the honorable
and seconder of the present notion has not been
1t Is admitted all hands that silk is article which
can be easily struggled, and that II il Struggled 70
very considerable extent In spite OF all H. preventive
measures that have from time to time been adopted
Now the object Of the British manufacturer a. "a
much as possible. TO shut out the competition
OF Ills foreign rival. II smuggling could be- pre-
vented would concedc TO him that Prohibition would
be most enectual to this object but II 1t cannot pha /,
TIE advantage Of prohibitions protoefg duty OF 30
per oen say Of 80 per cent. because never vet con