The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-02-13
AMERICAN PROHIBITIONS.

Ii America would take in exchange for her
wheat and cotton the goods England makes
wheat and cotton would bring better prices
But when we send abroad wheat, cotton and
tobacco we ask "cash." India and Egypt will
take pay in other commodities, and so they
are England's favored customers.
Courier-J Journal.
There is remarkable admission here, made
Internationally, that is sure to take the stiff
fleming out of free-trade argument every time.
The Courier-J ournal is right. The United
States can win high favor with British traders
if-whatf If we content ourselves with rails
ing corn and cotton, and take British manu-
features in exchange. There has been no
question that England would like to have
America take more of her manufactured
products, for cash or in any other
way recognized by the laws of commerce and
trade. The statesmen Of England would glad
ly welcome something Of the kind in order to
afford employment to the thousands of British
operatives idle because Of the fact that America
persists in supporting home industries. Eng
land would like to barter for our corn and cot
ton, the "dicker" to be made COM
plete by exchanging manufactured goods
for field products. Otherwise accord
ing to the Courier. Journal, this trade
will 60 by favor to India and Egypt 1t is
not plain that Indian and Egyptian wheat and
,,oE ~ G.,l III IT,
land after America had agreed to buy British
manufactures. There is no sentiment in bus
mess above dollars and cents. The margin
of profit is the end of the law in the CONNER
cial world. If the fellaheen of Egypt and
the ryots of India can produce cotton
and wheat more cheaply than Amer
lean farmers can, Of the fellah and
the ryot Johnny Bull will be morally certain
to buy. The American farmer and planter
will sell corn and cotton in Liverpool only in
competition with the half-clad, half-fed till
ers of the soil in the Orient. No sentimental
arrangement can change these conditions
American producers might elect to take their
pay in manufactures instead of cash, and the
laws Of this country might be modi-
fed to permit this choice, but
the question of reciprocity would
have to be determined at last by the British
buyer. Meanwhile several other American
interests would have somewhat to say. If we
are to kindly take payment for American
wheat and cotton in British cloths and mill
products of all kinds, what is to be done with
the American mechanic, the weaver, the iron
molder, the rolling-mill man, the halter, the
shoemaker, and of whatever occupation fol-
be set to raising wheat and cotton, and
crowd his way into the field as competitor
with instead of a patron of the American
farmer and planters How will the suggestion
of buying British manufactures strike the
American workingman, and how will the
American farmer and planter receive the idea
of having a million or more men suddenly
transformed from mechanics into farmersa
The edition of the Courier Journal contain
ing the editorial from which quotation
is made must have been intended for
circulation among the farmers. Few me.
chanics would relish the advice to purchase
manufactured articles abroad. Suppose the
effect of this idea be tried in rolling-mill or
a wooden factory. A vote of confidence and
thanks would hardly be passed. The trouble
with the theoretical free-trader is that he sees
but half the question, and persistently re-