The Grange advance. [volume] (Red Wing, Minn.) 1873-1877, 1876-04-26

from the London (Canada) Granger.
Protection vs.. Free Trade.
Editor Gronger:-I see, by leading
'rticle in your last paper, that it ap-
,ears to have been decided at the late
meeting Of the Dominion Grange, held
n Toronto, to petition Parliament for a
etaliatory tariff on the agricultural pro-
luce Of the United States, as well also
3 the produce of any other country
hat might impose similar duties on
canadian products. For some reason,
however, it appears that this decision
vas not carried into effect, and it was
ertainly better in the "breach than in
he observance" In former times, when
he benefits Of commerce were less I'm.
Ierstood than they are at present, such
etaliatory and hostile tariffs caused
;reat bitterness, and even war, between
.ations, and as such proceedings never
we're, and never can be, productive of
God to either party, it seems too late
adopt 50 blind and viudictive a meas
re. Prohibitory and discriminating
-ariffs must always be extremely incon-
enient, and where they have existed
ave generally been withdrawn by tacit
onsent, without overtures from either
'arty concerned. But, when relating to
gricultural produce, they are certainly
host unnecessary, and never can, under
my circumstances, be beneficial to any
community. A country cannot, at the
anne time, import and export agricul-
ural produce, unless it be. of different
inds, and then it is equally profitable,
8 the climate and soils are not equally
uitable for the production of both COM
-1odities, and the prevention of the i'm
'orts must necessarily prevent the ex-
,orts. The fact seems to be overlooked
hat all imported commodities must be
aid for by the export Of other commodi-
les more profitable to the producer.
10 nation can or will give you anything
or nothing; you must pay value for val
e in your own products. It'll therefore
lear, as far as the nation is concerned,
hat protection is a fallacy-a mere tax,
r destruction of profit, by preventing the
peration of those natural laws or facili-
les of production, which are always
lost profitable to every community.
he only apology that can possibly be
aered for tariff on imports and ex-
orts is the necessity for a revenue; but
he taxes should be laid judiciously on
lxuries and commodities not produced
n the country, never on the necessaries
f life. A revenue derived in that man.
er would be least felt by the commune
y.
The movement Of the Oranges, as
'ell as all other large associations, is, no
oubt, of great Importance to society
--ut whether beneficial or otherwise will
epend on the justice and intelligence Of
principles on which they are con-
ucted. The association of the Gran
CTS being composed chiefly of farmers,
,aturally the most independent class Of
he community, and whose interests can
-.ardly be interfered with without a
ertainty of detriment to the interests of
he whole community, they ought to
tand out boldly for the highest right of
roperty-that is, the right to exchange
freely, without legal hindrance or
appointment.
The assumption that it is profitable
curtail production by preventing the
atural exchange Of commodities, is 50
ruly absurd that il seems difficult to be-
eve that what is called protection can
honestly advocated by any individual
f average common sense.
The interests Of the farmer, however,
comparison with other interests, is
erfectly secure. Nolaw can materially
aiure him 90 far as the home consump.
ion of his products is concerned; but he
annot be benefited by protective duties
IN manufactures.
Assuming that he gets a higher price
u his products consumed at home,
trough an increased circulation of mon
u ,.ausel by the .axatinn Of innArta