Morning journal and courier., 1884-02-07
Protection vs. Free Trade.

Profeasor sumner on s.The Province of Taxation In Free Country"
 Professor Summers lecture before the
 Yale Kent club Tuesday night on the above 1 topic very auspiciously opened the course. If we search the history of our insti- tutions, municipal or national, said IT. speaker, we shall find that th" .,o.,.- connected with quest ~1-..1. -..u from them. There has baen -vns.ant struggle for civil and political rights I by which men have gradually built up the l system of self-taxation. The history of tax ation is history of great abuse. In ancient times king laid heavy taxes on his people | fer the enjoyment of himself and nobles. In modern times bad governments have pro dnced heavy and unjust taxation. Every 1 advance hos resulted in lower taxes. In our 1 own country we mset the same evil. Human nature does not change We have not solved the problem of oivil liberty yet. We do not always go right because we have Q republi- 1 can form of government. Wo have had many attempts to arrange this question 1 of taxation. Reformers are continually crying for taxes to support soma pot institution Tor plan. as free schools. Most often, however, their care ia to ward 1 of trade competition in trade. This is an abuse of the power. A farmer who cannot compete with the great producers of the 1 West and South must look out for himself. 1 No one protects him. But tho manufacturer l is subsidized. Now any aid to one man at the expense of another is unjust. A great
 many believe that this taxation is the means Of making great and prosperous country. But
 taxes deprive the people of comforts which 1 the money might bring them if not forced
 from them. If the community became so moral that we could dispense with the police 1 it would be great gain for all- Taxes can
 not make richer. Nothing produces wealth but labor and capital applied to land. There is in our country 8 great scandal, fi G., the alliance between tho politicians and manufacturing interests. A free government should create equal chances for all and then let them alone. The mo-
 ment you impose taxes for the benefit of one you force the others to support an institution in which they do not believe. To take mans earnings for another without giving him equivalent is B fundamental and inex- cusable overriding of his rights If negro | in the South has to pay six cents for spool
 of thread when he could in the market of the world get it for five he is the slave of
 the northern manufacturer as much as he
 was once of his southern master. Of all
 theories that of protectionist economist is
 the most wild and ungoverned. Suppose
 family were shipwrecked, cut of from all
 tho rest of the world on desert island, they
 are obliged to go to work and make for them
 selves what they can. Now if ship comes
 to them they hail it with joy, it connects
 them again with the world without. They
 raise their products and exchange them for
 all useful and beautiful things which the
 market of the world affords. Now comes
 the protsctionist philosopher and tells them
 that they cannot stand it to trade with the
 old and powerful nations, and that
 if they wish to become great and
 strong put on taxes enough to cut off all
 this trade and put themselves back
 where they were before the ship arrived ! Is it reasonable? :? We are told that it is for
 the advantage of the country to contribute
 to the support of some industry. What one
 The great argument usually offered to gain protection is that the industry cannot stand
 alone We are told that we should compete
 with other nations in industries in which they cannot naturally compete. What is an
 industry good for For the wealth 1t pro-
 ducss. If it has to be supported by taxation 1t is 6 parasite self supporting trades, an 1 economic abonination. Protected industries
 are like poor relatives. But they are
 worse. Not only dol they live on
 others, but are not content un- They destroy wealth as surely does con- Ihasration. If the industries of the country
 gain from each other equal amounts the gen.
 ersl effect will be nil, and if unequal one
 will rob the other. The great prairies of the 1 West once held the monopoly of the wheat
 market of the world. It now has to compete
 with other countries, and burdened as it is ! with the support of the manufactures, it is
 doubtful whether they can stand the pres.
 sure. It is urged that if we open our mar
 kets England will make the gain. Now
 England takes 40 per cent. of our foreign trade.
 Should we quarrel with our best customer? But in all trade there is an exchange and the gain must be equal on both sides. We need
 for our depressed trades 8 larger market Yet we cannot get into the markets of the
 world unless we allow their goods to come to ours. If protection was ever good it has
 ceased to be so In trying to protect all our
 trades we render the effect nullity. A great
 argument of the protectionists against free
 trade is that it would create 8 monopoly
 against us So in order to prevent monop-
 purchased all our nickel in the mar ket of the world. Unfortunately some man
 discovered 8 mine in the United States and
 tax of 30 per cent. was imposed on the
 foreign metal. The result was we had to pay
 30 per cent more for our nickel and the ] | owner of the mine pocketed the difference.
 Protectionism is impracticable. Its support , ing have never made 8 tariff which satisfied l them. They never will. Their measures merely entangle the complicated mass of our
 national industry and hamper it in many
 ways. If the question is once fairly pre-. scented to the American people so that they understand it, the lecturer was confident they ! would answer that every man should trade when and where he pleased up and down the ! face of the earth.