The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1881-06-21
TARIFF AND FREE TRADE.


take advice from each other. They
are still more adverse to advice thai
is given them by foreigners, who we
are apt to imagine are as ignorant OF
our affairs as We are conversant With
theirs. But when an English
man presumes to give an opinion
of our national policy, We are
particularly indignant, as Ne con-
clude at once that bis motive lie purely
selfish. While those who are inter
ested in manufactures are opposed to
the discussion OF free trade by their
countrymen upen whose charity they
subeist, they consider it an unbear-
able impertinence it Englishmen
bring forward arguments drawn from
their own experience ia order to in.
cline us TO follow their example.
They are foxes, say they. who have
lost their own tails and would like to
zee all ether foxes cutting Of theirs.
The advocates and opponents OF free
trade in England as classes. are the
opponents and the advocates OF it in
the United States, reversing their po-
sitions. In England the maDufac
turers who if not numerically in TIE
majority. are OF the majority
in wealth, favor free trade
Here, the same class small minor
ity, but like their fellows IN England
powerful with their money. are the
strenuous supporters of the tariff. The
people of England who would like tc
return to q system Of heavy duties
especially on grain, indeed solely or
that. are thu farmers. Could they
carry their point it ia clear that their
gain would consist in the loss the man
ufacturers would sustain in paying
more for thsiE daily bread. Given
then. 'protsctiou" in England, the
farmers would be gamers and the
manufacturers would be losers.
Here, il must be equally self
evident that protection is maintained
for tbs benefit of the manufacturers
and at loss to the farmers. Il has
been most ably demonstrated by Mr.
Graham McAdsm, from whcse ad
muable tract we made quotations 1T
the time OF its issue last year, sks.t
in this country the many !ar@ers
pay the few manufacturers, just as
the few farmers IN hDglaud
wsuld Ike to "ciuch" the lew
manufacturers. We have been drawn
to a consideration OF .his subject by
reading criticism of the policy Of
Secretary Window in the Pail Mol!
Gazette. Notwithstanding TIE reluc'-
ance of our people to learn anything
that foreigners can teach them,
they do read sheir literature
and their poetry. and they
ought therefore to recognize the truth
OF Whist it lie, ITO see oursels a.
ithers see US " Therefore the criti.
oism OF the LONDON journal will DO Us
no harm:
Laws" said Mr. Window, "must be
passed tending to promote commerce and
Industry, and there should be govern
ment department embracing commerce,
agriculture, mining, and home and
foreign manufacturing. Our shipping
would not disappear from the ocean. The
American producer must not be left to
compete siUgle-handed with the organ
lied power Of foreign countries" etc.
All this means, We suppose, that the gov
eminent Of Mr.. Garfield intends to de-
vote some part Of the great resources
placed at its disposal by the wonderful
prosperity of the national treasury TO
ceddliDg sickly industries. Taxes will
not be reduced, the people will not be
unshackled. On the contrary, they
will be kept in letters for the benefit Of
the men who aim st assuming great
place in the worlds trade at the nations
expense. "Our prosperity will cease if
we fail to find an open Market" the
secretary TO the treasury adds; and the
way, of course, to find san open market"
is to undersell everybody else. That can
only be done by Americans through sub
sides, if at all; and SO the taxes must be
kept up to find the means of fostering
trade abroad.
We wish the States joy of this policy;
and on the maxim of THE acuter the dis
ease the sooner the crisis" can have no
objections to its getting q fair trial.
Nothing will so certainly strengthen the
already important free-trsde party in the
Union.