Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1882-09-26

is necessary to national prosperity. I'll
you ask them what system, they give
no answer, but you are forced to infer
from what they do say that the main
thing to look out for is to make the
taxes high enough. They then set to
work to lay taxes, carrying out their
system, and the result is tangle of re-
strictiOns laid on industry and conn
merce such that the advocates of the
system themselves, while declaring that
it is Enthusiastically adjusted, stand
helpless before the task of remodeling it,
ITO me then, say, as a student of
economic science, the whole theory and
doctrine of national advantage from q
protective tariff is absurd from its first
principle. 1t sets every principle of
scientific thought at defiance, contra.
diets Itself at every step, and is hope
lessly entangled in its own absurdities.
Ii, therefore, student of economic sci
ence reaches any results at ali that are
useful to society, he must say to his fell
low-citizens, in regard to a protective
tariff It is mistake and a delusion.
1t lowers the national wealth, It makes
us all poorer. It wastes our efforts and
energies. The arguments in favor of it
are all silly fallacies.
In its political aspect the case for the
tariff Is no better. A free man cannot
protect or be protected by free man,
because all free men are equal. A SUI
perlor can protect an inferior. Men
can protect women, children. infirm
persons, animals, &c. The reason ia be-
cause men produce and dispose of the
strength of society, and they can direct
it to the protection of the weak. Where.
ever there is any relation of protection.
there must be surplus power on one side
as there is deficiency on the other. Now,
where is the power greater than our
selves to which we can look to disburse
something, 70 us?' The free citizens of
the uatry, who are its only source of
strength and wealth? As free men we
must stand side by side, each working
for himself and each contributing his
share to the whole Let us perceive
distinctly that his theory of protection
or dependence on each other is sure to
be either folly or fraud; folly if we
waste our energy in pursuing Innocent
~ what Is impossible; fraud if those
who propose it and profit BY it know
what they are about.
ut is because the protective theory ia
absurd, economically. that nv antago.
nism, i'll so far as I am scientific econ.
omist. is aroused against it,
w Bat my moral indignation against
protection rests upon another basis.
Protective legislation gives one man
License to levy taxes on another. I do
not care what arguments are advanced
In favor Of that legislation. If every
one OF the arguments were sound it
would not at all change the abominable
character of that legislation in NV view
Of the matter. If my neighbor is au.
thorized by law to take my earnings
from me. it is immaterial to me whether
he is going to support his aged parents
or build beautiful house and give
grand Establishments With the money.
or contribute 1t to school, a hospital
or chrseh. All history is full of these
projects by which some naen have aimed
to spend other peoples earnings better
than other people could spend their
earnings themselves, fof course always
for grand social and public ends,) but
investigation has always shown isome
people were managing to live gloriouslv
without work by means of the aforesaid
noble projects.
IA man would not be fit to live in
these days if he would not help to fight
the forms of old social vice which affiict
us. For, in spite, of the notions of pro
gress' which are in fashion, the truth ia
that the old greed and salf1shness is still
among us. only it puts ON new forms.
1t is an abuse not to be endured that
any law should authorize man to lew
taxes on another. The law saws to the
pig-iron man, IF you make a ton of
pig. iron you may, besides the market
price of the sanae, levy a tax of ST. on
your fellow-citfzen when the necessity
forces him to buy your iron.' This is
simply the old device OF living at other
peoples expense under it's most modern
guise.
''If I had lived, in England in the
days OF sinecures and pensions I should
not nave tried 10 overthrow those abuses
by appealing 70 the benef1ciaries of the
abuses. sA0lld have called on those
VINO mao gay for the abuses to defend
themselves. The Anti-Corn Law
League had to recruit its army among
the victims of the law. In England it
was agriculture which was protected at
the expense of manufactures. Here it
is manufacturing which is protected at
the expense of agriculture. In both
cases the net result was and is reduc.
ton of tina welfare of the people. I
therefore, look to see the agricultural
population of the country rise and de-
molish the system of taxation which
takes away from them the fruits of their
industry and which robs them of the
products which they receive from the
bounty Of nature. Their attention has
too long been diverted from their real
interests to political questions of no mo.
ment. They will no longer use their po-
litlcal power to send men to Congress
who will squander the public money
with one hand, while increasing taxes
with the other.
ST infer from what I read in the
Western papers that one mode of argu-
ment is used with you which I have
never heard employed here. It seems
that among you some people who have
been Republicans find out whether they
are free-traders or not by referring to
the platform of the Republican party.
We are often told that the Western peo-
pie have more freedom and vigor than
we, but am forced to doubt it if any
man can be found among you who ia
vors protection because it is an Ortho-
dox creed of the Republican party. In
my section never heard the argument
addressed to any man, You ought to be
a protectionist because you are good
Republican,
In fact, think the intelligence and
good sense of the agricultural classes are
on trial. Why should they lend their
strength to impose letters on themselves?
WHY should the men of Iowala taxes on
Iowa to benefit Pennsylvania? No dis
nosition to return the favor has yet been
shown. Why should Western men give
political power to men who make CAPT
tai for themselves in the Federal arena
by sacrificing Western interests? 1t
the Western men would emancipate
themselves they would win a blessing
for US all, for free.trade would certainly
open sources of national strength and
prosperity such as are not now dreamed
of.
IT wish you all success in the work
which you are carrying on, and I do
not doubt that success is certain, sooner
or later, now that the subject is fairly
opened"
nSpNo family Dyes were ever so pop
nlar as the Diamond Dyes. They never