New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-07-04


| afectation of contempt the basis of the Con.
ference as "rank heresy repeated ad nausean, :
| BY Second and third-ra economists. ar INV
people who are not economists at arl.- Tba
Government is advised to read It's delegates
| lecture upon a currency scheme of which the
business world and our most distinguished
economists are proud" so that they may cease
| to misrepresent their country at Paris. These
| utterances have the impress OF national supe
| riority and will be received with hearty appro
val by the English public.
The st. James, Gazette has an article in n
different vein. II afirms that the acts of Parlia
ment which established Free Trade DESTROYED a
large number of industries in existence thirty
five years ago, and @that the home market
now receives from abroad ali the articles of usc
and luxury which it formerly took from tho
protected domestic manufactures" 1t de-
scribes England as the great manufacturer Of
shoddy for the entire world" for the industries
which survive are relatively few in number and
produce prodigious quantity OF cheap goods.
IL then points out a fact which tire orthodox
Free Traders will lot face. "The entire civil
lzed world, which WAS intended to buy these
goods enters into a league to exclude them.
Foreign markets are closed against n nation
which has deliberately sacrificed one minor
business of a special kind; and when FREQ
Traders are asked what is to be done, they reply.
DO nothing; Providence will interfere some
how" like the Red Indian who refuses TO 90
a-huntiDg when Lis stock of venison is ccttip,
smaller and smaller" The conclusion which
is reached is that it is arrant folly for English
men to expect that foreign Protectionists will DO
brought to see the errors OF their WAYS and
that retaliation rs not Inconsistent in princinle
with Free Trade.
1t is not our purpose TO enforce the moral Of
the wholesome truths which are blurted out in
this remarkable article. We only wish to mako
practical application of the main premise on
which the argument is based, namely that a
science formed by generalization, like political
economy, must be constant Y corrected, or it will
make no progress. A nation against whom the
tariffs OF the civilized world are massed is i'm a
position 10 revise Its economic theories bv the
light of the new facts. 1t is not in posi-. ion TO
reaflirm the iDfallibility of its own judgment.
In like manner, when it is asked to unite with
other nations in a scheme for revising the
monetary systems Of the business world. it
should give al, the new facts their full weight
and not condemn in advance any departure
from English ideas as plunge from the heights
of orthodoxy into fathomless heresy. If the
new facts only tend to strengthen the old
ideas, well and good. If the old IDEAS are
upset by the new facts, so much the worse for
econoWic orthodoxy" But the ASSUMPTION
of national infallibiity goes for nothing. In
an unstable world like our own little planet. il
is prcsumptuous to expect that Providence
Will interfere somehow" TO convince mankind
that in political economy whatever is English
Is night and whatever is not English is wrong.