The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-11-25
The Free-Traders.

ence at Chicago, few days ago, put
forth an address to the people in which
they made their usual attack upon what
they call the "war tariff ASSERTING
that it has been the principal cause of
the commercial and industrial depres-
sion of recent years; that it has him
dered employment to labor, DISTRACTED
the consumption of our agricultural and
manufactured products by other coun-
tries that it has imposed a new indus
trial slavery, prevented progress of
wealth among the farming classes, de-
creased wages and their purchasing
power, demoralized the general bust
ness of the country, and much more to
the same effect. If the formidable in
dictment of the protective policy made
by the free-traders was sustained by
facts, there would be little ground left
for controversy, but the truth is that
the facts are all against them.
The free-traders, in their discussions
and platform, dwelt particularly upon the
business depression in this country, and
charged it all to the high tariff. They
ignored the fact that the depression
which has been felt in the United
States has been felt with vastly more
crushing effect in England. The log
ical inference from their premises is
that if our protective system has caused
the loss here, it must be the English
free-trade system which has caused the
greater suffering there. One of the
speakers at the conference attempted
to show, by some curious juggling of
figures from the census reports of the
last four decades, that the country had
made its greatest progress in material
wealth under low tariff. But the
fact in this regard is that between
1916 and 1861, under a tariff system
which tended toward free-trade, indus
trial enterprises of all descriptions were
so depressed as to cause great distress,
which continued, with varying degrees
of intensity, until the civil war broke
out and the Morrill, tariff went into OPP
Grafton. Under the low tariff, the i'm
ports from Great Britain increased
more than one hundred twenty per
cent in five years. The results were
seen in the rapid decline of manufac-
turing activities, the lessened demand
for labor and the reduction of wages.
British industries attained great pros
perity during this period at the expense
of our own.
Again, the free-traders put great
stress upon the necessity of admitting
raw materials - free of all tariff
duties to promote the interests of labor
and commerce. This is all well enough
if it be applied to crude material which
cannot be produced in this country;
but in respect to all raw products that
the country can afford, there is no
reason why these are not as much en-
titled to be protected against unfriendly
competition as the manufactured ar
ticles. The free-traders are not con-
sistent in their demand for the free
admission of raw materials. While
they would put lumber, salt, wool, pig
iron, tin-plates, wood-pulp, coal and
dye-stuffs on the free list, they omitted
raw sugar, upon which the duty at last
years prices was about seventy per
cent. What they aim to accomplish
would seem to be such modification
of tariff duties as will benefit the pro-
ducers and pauper-labor of other coun-
tries. AT least this would be the in
evitable result of their policy if they
were permitted to carry it out. The
free-trade conference declared that
specific duties should be abolished and
that the ad calorem principle should be
substituted therefor, though it has been
fully demonstrated that the former is
the simpler method, while the latter
has invariably proved more fruitful in
frauds upon the government revenues.
Another effect of od raloren duties
would be to flood the country with for
eign goods when prices are low. Thus
we see again that the plans of the free
traders constantly tend to the benefit
of foreign commercial and manufactur-
ing interests.
What can be said in answer to the
allegation of the free-traders that pro-
lection has retarded the prosperity of
the farming classes? 1t is undeniable
that our manufacturing industries have
been built up by the protective policy;
but the free-traders charge that this
has been done at the expense of the
farmers. In 1861, when the high tariff
went into effect, there were less than
100000 farms; in 1880 there were
100000. The value of farms rose
from $4,000, 100000, in 1861, to over
$40, 500, 900, 900 in 1880. Our merchan-
disc exports had increased more than
$500, 100000 in twenty years, and the
leading items were drawn from field
and farm. It is difficult to discover