New-York tribune., 1885-01-08
French can bring their campaign of reprisais TO
O successful issue.
SELLING. THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE.

SELLING THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE.
The gravest objection to the pendhg COM
mercial treaties has nowhere been stated with
more force than in memorial OF the Natioha,
Association of Wool Manufacturers when VIII
be found in the January number OF the ba"ean
of the association. The new policy proposed
the memorial urges, Is "nOthing less than tne
"substitution of diplomacy for legislation In
determining the customs duties upon winch
the revenues of the Nation and the industries
sof the people depend" This and other
objections are formulated by the association In
twenty distinct reasons for opposing the ratifca-
tion of the treaties, the more important OF
which are quoted to-day on another page.
The very essence of the commercial policy in
question Is an assumption, which none put
extreme free-traders will make that freedom
of access to the markets OF other countries Is
always and necessarily a blessing. In the
commercial treaty, each nation buys some OF
this freedom, as il it were the one thing
altogether desirable, and pays for it by sur
rendering some of its power to defend its own
industries. But the first and most sacred duty
of n nation is to defend its industries whenever
and wherever defence is needed, and the power
so to defend them is the one thing above all
Others which q nation cannot barter away with
safety to itself, or with justice to its people.
What man would sell his right to defend
himself if assailed7 Legislation, in which the
voice of the people is heard, can be freely
modified from time to time as the interests OF
the people require. But treaties which can be
modified only with assent of another nation,
bind most surely when their influence is most
disastrous.
Hence 1t is that the commercial treaty has
ever been the favorte device by which free
trade has been fostered. The nation which
believes in freedom of trade and enslavement
of labor is quite aware that the people OF other
nations, if left free to choose, Will not long
endure an exchange which impoverishes them.
1t therefore seeks to bind them, hand and foot,
by treaties which can be honorably abrogated
only by mutual consent Ii this were not the
object, if it were intended to bring about only
such an exchange as may prove mutually
beneficial, agreement of the two nations IN
independent legislation would be preferred.
Each nation would then be free to retire from
the arrangement. If it proved unjust to its
people. All experience teaches, too, that it is
easier to get a nation into industrial serfdom by
cunning diplomacy than to induce the millions
to part with the power of defending their
industries
1t is startling thing to ask the American
people to bind themselves not to defend their
industries from destruction. Yet there are
those who hope that, by the ratification not
only of the treaties how pending, but of many
others, Congress may consent to put upon the
people fetters which the people certainly would
never put upon themselves. The reasons urged
by the Association Of Wool Manufacturers arc
clearly and strongly stated, and they deserve
serious consideration.