Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-03-10
HEMPMlS APPEAL
FRIoAY, s.: MARCH 10. 1859
PROTECTION PALACES.

The protective system" which is slowly
but most surely sapping our prosperity, is
founded on fallacies. It's very name is de-
ceptive, for the system is not protection OF
trade but a protection Of monopolies. 1t is
not protection of commerce, for it has made
the United States flag rarity in every
foreign seaport. Founded upon fallacies,
those who endeayor to support it in discus
sion necessarily break down when arrayed
before the logical force OF the worlds expert
ence. The hast issue of the International had
an article in its defense and in a magazine
of that character if any sound argument
could be urged in favor of protection" we
might expect TO find it in its pages; but no
reader who is conversant with the subject it
discusses can fail to see the Inte7nationars
want of ground upon which to stand, and of
weapons with which to fight 1t Processes to
attack "a science founded on assumptions
but it demonstrates the existence OF
no assumption, and combats none. 1t
accuses England Of some things Eng
land did when it was the most hide
bound protectiOnist country in the world,
and Of coercing other nations to trade with
il in a manner utterly inconsistent with the
free-trade principles England processes. The
very faults OF which it accuses England are,
if they exist, faults growing out of that
nations violation Of its own professed prin-
ciples; that these violations are faults is
proof that protection is the author of those |
faults, for, had England consistently adhered |
to its own doctrines those errors would not |
have been committed. This self-conviction |
is what must necessarily arise from argu- |
ment where the major premise is a fallacy. |
Accordingly, as rule, the protectionists do |
not meet arguments, they Grade them; they do
not reply, they Jenoe. Facts to them are mere
theories, proof is trash, and demonstration is
matter outside the argument. As it ever is,
so we find it in an attempt by the Chatta-
nooga 1FGdesmGR to reply TO what we said |
with reference to its blunt allegation that |
the assertion that that country's bust |
ness hourished best that was least inter |
fered with by its government, was "a false |
hood" 1t now claims that the falsehoed was |
for any one to assume that either free trade
or protection was sin the nature of govern
ment interference with trade" Here is the |
same self conviction that the International
writer exhibits. Take government interior
ence" away from the American trade, by
taking away "the tariff, not for revenue, but
protection"-the protection the delegate at
Chicago required-and where would Ameri-
can protection be? The Ifadesmdn also
accuses unfortunate England of not practic-
ing free trade. So much the worse for Eng
land, but whether she be for her former pro-
lection or her present free trade Americans
are not bound to be her slavish imitstors in
either one or the other, and, therefore, we
shall not be drawn from the subject of Amer
lean trade, although the Irademan invites
us to discuss the trade of England in connec-
sion with it. "Walk into my parlor, said the
spider to the hy."