The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-08-22
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

the Editor of the Indianapolis Journals:

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
AS everybody knows, Fra nee is separated
from England only by a big ditch that ma
ture scooped out, years ago, which ditch is
crossed several times a day in an hours
ride. On one side of thisd ditch is free trade
in all its perfection; on the other a nation
working under the most scientific system OF
protection now in existence. According to
free-trade teachings, France should be very
poor from it's century Of protection, tariff
and other artificial industries ready to col
lapse as soon as the government withdraws
its support. Unfortunately for this paper doc
trine, France is enormously rich, and her
wealth largely in the hands OF her common
people, while the condition of her working
men, to all outward appearances, is far
ahead of those OF England. As proof OF the
first proposition / point to the unparalleled
financial feat of raising 81, 900, 900, 900 in gold
IN less than a year to pay the German IN
demnity, and raising it among her W peo-
pie, and in proof of the second to
the fact that there are few or no
beggars to beset you here as in England;
to the fact that there are no b~arefooted,
drunken men and women, and to the uni
versal content that prevails among its peas
antry with ia belle France" Who ever
saw or heard Of a shibload of French emf
grants arriving in the United States? France
is one vast cultivated field, either wheat or
garden or vineyard. Everything Except
corn is raised here in sufficient quantities to
support the people, for there are no enorm-
Gus tracts of land, as in England, devoted to
game covers or noblemen's parks. There
are, in fact, but few French noblemen. The
land is so subdivided among the people that
the little farms give the landscape an ap-
pearance not unlike a checker-board, as each
owner cultivates differently from his neigh
Dor. To put the matter short, France feeds
itself, while England depends upon her
%neighbors for food.
All this, to my mind, proves that a nation
may thrive either under free trade or pro-
lection. A deeper law than dollars and
cents must determine the choice. Protection
would not be good for England, and the
wisest thing that Sir Robert Peel ever did
was, in 1916, to abandon it. On the other
hand, the French statesmen have been
equally wise in their day and generation in
making choice OF protection. The man that
goes abroad expecting to find this question
settled makes a mistake. No nation can
teach another any final lesson in this matter.
As long as there are geographical differences
in soil and climate, and differences in race
and race habits and natural characteristics
ideas and aims we shall find different econ
omie systems.
We OF the United States must make our own
tariff according to our necessities and inter
ests. But I cannot doubt the evidence of
my eyes that here in France the condition OF
the workingmen and the poor people is in
t%initely better than in England. Mems iudg-
ments will always differ, but the revolution
of 1889 certainly accomplished some great
things for France, three of which will re-
deem it from its barbarity-the abolition OF
nobility, the division of the land among the
;ommon people, and the disestablishment OF
che church as a state institution.
PARIS, Aug. 5. d. P. BALDWIN.