Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-09-12
lalcaster fnteIl,Qenrer.
MONDAY EVENING. SEPT. IA. 1884,
Fair Trade.

the nat ural instincts As we'll AZ to the
sense Of men. Why should a
nation any more than An individual eN-
tend advantages 10 those who persistent
ly refuse to reciprocate II the United
States, after an age of trial. continues TO
lay prohibitory duties upon British man
ufactures, why. asks the Englishman.
should Great Britain admit free the
grain and meat of the United States ?
II France does the same why should
Great Britain admit her wines and the
thousand and one articles which come
from that side Of the channel Why
should her markets he held wide open to
those whose markets are partly or wholly
closed to hers ? The answer in the case
OF the United States is that the British
must eat and that they must take their
food from us because We have a surplus,
while they are deficient. But her sched-
ule of duties might easily he arranged
80 as to draw her supplies from other
countries, and to exclude our bread
stuffs entirely. and this is, we suppose,
what the advocates Of fair trade are
driving at. They propose that England
shall discriminate against those powers
which discriminate against her, and
favor those which favor her. Even Mr..
Golden and his associates, who effected
a repeal of the corn laws, never cOntem-
plated the long continuance of the
liberal policy of England without recip
rocity. They believed that the influence
of her example would cause the gradual
removal of ill unreasonable and burden
some restrictions throughout the world
and thereby give to England cheap
bread at home and open markets
abroad.
This, indeed, WAS the idea Of the
wisesL of our forefathers long before it
had made Il lOdgment in England any
where beyond the dreams of political
philosophers. When the foundations of
this cOnfederacy were laid to secure
forever the freedom of those who
were to inhabit it, freedom Of
trade was not forgotten. The Fed
eralists, it is true, were in favor
of putting the management of the peO
pies business in the hands of govern
ment rs far :tS possible while the Re-
publicans or Democrats were for intrusi =
ing il only where national necessity alb
solutely required. The two parties
fought out this issue with others in
their contests between 1883 and 1900,
under Jefferson and Hamilton reSpec-
lively. Ar. jefferson was theoretically
a free-tEuler but practically he was
pre-eMiiently fair trader. He he
lieved that absolute freedom of exchange
throughout the world would produce the
highest rewards of human labor to all ;
and he expressed these opinions with his
customary force in the Notes on Vir-
ginia and elsewhere. lie was con-
WINGED also that with an abundance of
land and rich virgin soil. our national
wealth would be more rapidly increased
by agriculture than by any variety OF
interests. 1t would have glajdened his
heart if he could have looked forward to
the time when the Southern states would
clothe the world with their cotton,
and the Northwestern feed it with
their wheat, their hogs and their cattle
but he never for Il moment lost sight of
the other principle - discrimination
against those nations which discriminate
against us. Free trade and naviga-
tion," he said, "a are not to be given in
exchange for restrictions and vexations :;
nor are they likely to produce a relaxa-
tion of them" This is fair trade doc
trine and all there is of it. He elabor-
ated it many years afterwards in the
ease and SecluSiOn OF Monticello i'm his
correspondence, and il there be Il party
in this country which accepts the teach
ings of jefferson rs the standard of its
faith, its watchwOrd must not he free
trade but fair trade, and its object must
be tariff for tha constitutional purpose
of revenue, but 50 arranged as to benefit
the nation ut large, and not to erect
monOpOlieS, or to enrich individuals ut
the expense of the people. These are the
true principles of Madison and Gala
tin rs we'll rs of jefferson, and are
still the principles of sound Democracy.
Those principles do not forbid the
grant of "A bounty to manufacturers, to
secure the development of the resources
of the country, furnish employment to
its people and make it Independent of
other countries. A protective duty is
simply i bounty. The additional money
paid 10y the people for the article So pro-
tected is :. tax levied upon them to
establish an industry believed to be of
such national benefit that it should be en-
cOuraged by 4 sufficient bounty. 1t makes
little difference i'm effect whether the
iron manufacturer, for instance, gets his
six dollars Il tOn-Or whatever the figure
may be that will enable him to keep his
fires going from duty or an apprO-
priation. 1t is good policy in the country
to pay it to him, to develop its natural
resources and to secure its independ-
ence; and it is good Democracy, because
it is good sense and patriotism, to pro-
mote such independence and develop.
ment. We can gracefully offer free
trade t" any nation that offers it to us
but that will not prohibit us from en-
cOuragins by direct bounties such manu-
featuring industries as we deem essen
tial 10 the prosperity of our country.