Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-09-21
PROTECTION DISSECTED.
Professor Sumner on the Tariff.
PRINCETON, MASS, September 4. 1SS


PRINCETON. MASS, September 4, 1882.
To the Editor Of the Iona State Leader:
have watched your paper with very great
interest and have noted the opening of the
campaign, the platform and Professor Per-
rvs speech, and sm very glad, indeed, to
see that there is to be square fight for free
trade.
NY interest in the cause OF free trade is
| twofold:
1. In the first place. as student OF po-
| lItical economy, l find that a protective
! tariff, as a theory of wealth. is q tissue of
| absurdities. Any one who believes in pro-
| tective tariff must believe that new colony
| could not prosper by simply putting labor
/ on land to get out Of 1t the necessaries cf
| life. He must believe that It is necessary
| first to tax the people properly before they
can prosper, even though they may be in
telligent and industrious, and although the
land beneath their feet NAV be
fertile and we'll situated. 1t is
plain that the protectiOnists' arguments
do assume just this position. They
start from the assumption that some system
/ of taxation is necessary to national pros
| perity. II 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, carry out their system, aud the result
is taugle of restrictions laid on industry
and commerce such that the advocates of
| the system themselves, while declaring Il lat
II is unsatisfactory adjusted, stand help-
/ less before the task of remodeling.
To me, then, l say, as a student Of
| economic science, the whole theory 81 d
| doctrine OF national advantage from 3 pro-
/ tective tariff is absurd from its first princi-
pie. II sets every principle of scientific
| thought at defiance, contradlcts itself at
every step, and is hopelessly entangled in
its own absurdities. II, therefore, Student
Of economic science reaches any results at
| all which are useful to society, he must say
to his fellow citizens, in regard to a protRc-
tive thrift: 1t is a mistake and q delusion.
1t lowers the national wealth. 1t makeI US
all poorer. 1t wastes our efforts and en- er-
gies. The arguments in favor of 1t are all
silly fsllacies
In its political aspect the case for the
tariff is no better. A free man cannot 2 ro-
tect or be protected by free man, becs use
all free men are equal. A superior can ,)ro-
tect an inferior. Men protect women, c hil-
dren, intirm persone, animals, etc. The
reason is because men produce and disp ose
OF the strength Of society, and they can d.
rect 1t to the protection o. the weak.
Wherever there is any relation OF protect ION,
there must be surplus power on one side as
there is deficiency on the other. Now,
=
ourselves to which we can look to disIMlrse
something to us, the free citizens Of the
country, who sTe its only source of siren 9Th
and wealth? As free men we must sta nd
side by side, each working for himself nd
each contributing his share to the who Ie
Let us perceive distinctly that any theory of
protection or dependence on each other is |
sure to be either folly or fraud; folly If we |
waste our energy in pursuing innocently |
what Is impossible; fraud If those who pI o. |
pose It and profit by it know what they are |
about.
It is because the protective theory is sb- |
surd, economically, that my antagonisln, in 1
so far as l am q scientific economist, is |
aroused against it.
2. But my moral indignation against pro-
tectionism rests upon another basis. Pro
tective legislation gives one man license to /
levy taxes on another. / do not care " hat
arguments are advanced In favor of that 1
legislation II every one of the arguments 4
were sound it would not at all change the |
sbominable character of that legislation in |
my view of the matter. II my neighbor IS Au-
thoriZed by law to take my earnings from me,
itis immaterial,t to me whether be is going to
support his aged parents or build bea uti-
full house or give grand entertainments with
the money, or contribute 1t to school, q
hospital or a church. All history is ful of
| these projects by which some men ave
| aimed to spend other peoples earnings bet
ter than other people could spend t heir
earnings themselves (of course always for
grand social and public ends), but inv .sti- |
CATION has always shown that F'some ,eo-
pie" were managing to live gloriously " ith- |
out work by means OF the aforesaid noble
projects.
A man would not be fit to live in these
days If he would not help tn fight the forms |
Of old social vice which sfflIct US. For, in |
spite OF the notions Of ''progressn which are |
n fashion the tr4th 4 that b0 old ,aad |
and selfsaress is still among US, only It |
puts on new forms. 1t Is an abuse not t. D be |
endured that any law should authorize a
man to levy taxes On another. The law says
to the pig iron man: "It you make ton |
of pig iron you may, besides the ma rket |
price of the same, levy tax Of 81 on Vour |
fellow citizen when necessity forces him to |
buy your iron." This is simply the old |
device Of living at other peoples expense
under its most modern guise.
II had lived in England in the days Of |
snecures and pensions / should not have |
tried to overthrow those abuses by appe al |
ing to the benehciaries OF the abuses. |
should have called on those who had to JIay |
for the abuses to defend themselves 1rhe
Anti-Corn Law League had to recruit its |
army among the victims OF the law. In
England 1t was agriculture which was o ro-
tected at the expense of manufsctuI es.
Here It is manufacturing which is protect ed |
at the expense of agriculture. In both ca ses
the net result was and is reduction OF the |
welfare Of the people. l therefore look to |
see the agricultural population Of this COT IN |
try rise and demOlish the system of taxat5 on |
which takes away from them the fruits OF |
their industry, and which robs them of he /
products which they receive from he |
bounty Of nature. Their attention has be en- |
too long diverted from their real intera SITS |
to political questions Of no moment. tt ey |
will no longer use their political power to |
send men to Congress who will fquani ler |
the public money with one hand while in |
creasing taxes with the other.
I infer from what I read in the Wester IN /
papers that one mode Of argument is used |
with you which have never heard employed /
here. II seems that among you some peo pie |
who have been Republicans find out wheth her |
they are free traders or not by referring TO |
the platform Of the Republican party. We |
are often told that the Western people ave /
more freedom and vigor than we, but am
forced to doubt 1t II any man can be fol Ind |
among you who favOrs protection beca use
is an article in the orthodox creed of the
Republican party. In our section b ave
never heard the argument addressed to slDy |
man: You ought to be a protectionist be
cause you are q good Republican.
In fact, think that the intelligence end
good sense Of the agricultural classes are on |
trial. Why should they lend their strength |
to impose fetters on themselves? Why |
should the men OF Iowa lay taxes on Iowa |
to benefit Pennsylvania? No disposition to
return the favor has yet been shown. Why
should Western men give political power to
men who make capital for themselves in |
the Federal arena by sacrificing Western In
tereste II the Western men would emen-
cipate themselves they would win BILE IS
ing for us all, for free trade would certainly
open sources of national strength and pros
perity such as are not now dreamed of.
| wish YOU all sucCass in the work which |
you are carrying on, and do not doubt that
success is certain, sooner or later, now that
the subject is fairly opened.
Yours sincerely, w. G. SUMNER.
------<s-D-S<-
A M0cnu;to Q{foo n Mo- l.. Al Nj |