Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1881-04-07

the price Of the foreign gods ia the
home market Is increased so as TO keep
q EN- out Of the country altogether or to
place the foreigner as to the cost OF pro-
d lction upon the same footing as the
American producer. This is proposed to
he done by levying duty upon the for
eign Importation. II it be 20 high that
the importer cannot pay it and sell the
goods at a profit, the facilities OF produc-
tton between this and other countries
are said to be equalized. and the Ameri-
can producer is said to be protected. IL
Nill be seen, therefore, that protection
means the increase Of price. Without 1t
the fabric has no foundation on which to
rest. If the foreign goods are still impor-
ted. the importer adds the duty paid to
he selling price. If he cannot import
it'll profit, the American producer raises
his price to a point always below that at
which the foreign goods could be profit
ably brought into the country and con-
trols the market. In either event there
Is an increase of price of the products
sought to be protected. The bald propo-
,itIon, therefore, is that American indus
ries can and ought TO be protected by
increasing the price of the products OF
| such industries.
There are three popular opinions indus
rriously cultivated and strengthened by
ldroit advocates upon which the whole
System rests, and to which appeals are
yer confidently made. These opinions
are erroneous, and lead to false conclu'
lions. and should be first considered in
very discussion of this question.
THE FIRST
| is. that the balance of trade is in our IA
vor when our expectations exceed our
importations. Upon this theory it is
argued that it cannot be unwise to put
restrictions upon importations, for 1t is
said that at one and the same time you
| rive protection to our industries and
| keep the balance of trade in our favor
| But the slightest investigation will show
hat this proposition cannot be main
tanned. A single illustration, often re-
peated, but never old in this discussion,
will demonstrate it. Let ship set sail
from Portland, Me-, with a cargo OF
slaves registered at the port of departures
IS worth $4,000. They are carried to the
| West India Islands, where slaves are In
demand, and exchanged for sugar or mo-
Iasses. The ship returnes, and after duty
paid the owner sell his sugar and molas-
ses at profit of $4,000. Here more has
been imported than exported. Upon this
transaction the protectionist would say
that the balance of trade was against us
| $4,000; the free trader says that the sum
represents the profit to the shipper upon
his traffic, and the true balance in our ia
vor. Suppose that after it has set sail the
vessel with its cargo has been lost. In
such case $1,000 worth of goods would
have been exported, with no importation
against it. The exportion has exceeded
the importation that sum. Is not the
balance of trade, according to the protec
ton theory, to that amount in our favor
Then let the protectionist turn pirate ant
scuttle and sink all the vessels laden witt
our exports, and soon the balance OF trade
in our favor will be large enough to sat
isfy even most advocates of the American
protective system. Laughter and ap
plause. The true theory is that i'll com
merce the overplus of the importation
above the expectation represents the prof
it accruing to the country. This overplus
deducting the expenses, is real wealth
added to the land. Push the two theorie:
to their last position, and the true one
: will be clearly seen. Export everything
import nothing. though the balance O.
trade may be said to be overwhelmingly
N our favor, there is poverty, scarcity
death. Import everything, export moth
ing, we then will have in addition to ou
own all the wealth of the world IN oul
possession.
THE SECOND.
tt ia said that a nation should be indie
pendent of foreign nations, lest in tlnl'
of war it might find itself helpless or de
fenseless. Free trade, it is charged
makes people dependent upon foreign
ers. But traffic is exchange. Forelgr
products do not come into country un
less domestic products go out. This de
Dc ndence, th, relore, is mutual. BY trade
with foreign nations, they are as depend
ent upon us as we upon them, and in the
event of disturbance of peace the nation
with which we would be at war would
lose just as much as we would lose, ant
both as to the war would in that regart
stand upon terms of equality. 1t mus
not be forgotten that obstruction of trade
h.tween nations is one of the greatest
occasions of war. 1t frequently give!
rise to misunderstanding which result
in serious conflicts. BY removing these
obstacles and making trade as free as
| Ln,,,oht ,I\,u,. tr,