Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-09-14
HI TARIFF AGAIN,
mr.. Bottell's Letter Continued.

But let us consider the figures given.
In 1880, Mr.. Stewart says, the wealth of
this country was $4,000, 000, 900. and, he
adds, it transcribed that of England.
Perhaps it did transcend that of Eng
land. We do not think it did that of
Great Britain, although our population
was much the largest.
In 1876 the accumulated wealth of
Great Britain is estimated in the British
Encyclopedia at SIP, 740,0 00, 900. | have
not been able to find the estimate for
1850. The population of Great Britain in
1881, when their last census was taken,
was, in round numbers. $4,000, 900. The
average of wealth to each individual is
Sl22l against $3.50 in America.
We cannot see in this outcome that
the free trade country suffers in the com
p%arison. And when it is remembered
that the extent of territory compared is
as "a to l in our favor, several of our
States being larger than the whole of
Great Britain, and that this estimate of
wealth consists largely, more than half,
- lNdl CllA tiAC UAOOL J. sui lCcN
strikingly in our favor.
Reverse the conditions. Suppose we
had only l22 900 square miles of territory
and 5000, 600 of people, and Great Brit
ain 100000 square miles, and above 90
100000 Inhabitants, and that then our
wealth nearly equalled, or eXcelled theirs
in the aggregate, and to the individual
very much exceeded it. The outcome
then, certainly, would be something more
to boast of than now.
Does Mr.. stewart suppose that such a
result as this could be reached and the
small country have a high protective
tariff, There certainly was never an il
lustration of it. And | venture to say
that it was impossible. Not the markets
of a country, but of the world make the
greatest nation.
There is another and remarkable con-
dition in our prosperity. There are Of
the United States now IS independent
States, besides the territories. In most
respects these are as Independent as sep
dItkt ltllOl-s UltL DtlM eel lltIl lIltIt IL
absolute free trade. Does Mr.. Stewart
suppose, or does he not, hat this has
anything TO do with their prosperity.
Does he suppose that if each one of these
States had a high protective tariff to
protect it citizens, 1t would have been
the gamer by it: Vermont. for instance,
can raise wheat. \ high protective tar
if might compel her to raise the wheat
she uses, and so save her from paying
ont her money to Michigan, or Wiscon-
sin. or any other State for this article,
Wouldn't she in this way, too, protect
her laborer, for wouldn't he get employ
ment in raising wheat: But would it, OF
would it not, be an object for her tc
raise this wheat instead of buying it:
And supposing she could buy the wheat
somewhere else cheaper han She could in
Michigan, wouldn't it he for her advantage
so to do: And if wheat. why not any
other product: Wouldn't it always be
to our advantage to buy of Michigan. OF
any other state, or anywhere else, any.
thing which we could so buy cheaper
than we could raise it: And there might
be cases where it would be better for us tC
so buy even though we could raise it cheap.
er than we could buy it. Suppose while
W. were raising a bushel of wheat which
we could buy for a dollar we could make
eight pounds of butter that we could sell
for 50. Wouldn't we better make the
butter and buy the wheat? In one case
we would have one bushel of wheat. and
III the other. at same expense, two bush
els. Isn't two bushels worth more than
one? And doesn't it follow always that
one would better raise what they can
make the most from.
Free trade is simply charging these
States. Its taking in, first, Canada, per-
haps, then Mexico, then the South Amer
can States, and afterwards the countries
of Europe, Asia and Africa, making of
the whole, so far as trade is concerned,
one harmonious country, where anybody
did that which they could do to the best
advantage, and so enjoyed the highest
prosperity possible.
Can Mr.. Stewart imagine that if this is
true with the States, it would not be true
if there were more States, and where
could the limit be until all were reached:
Is Mr.. Stewart very sure, then, that
the ''outcome" of this country's wealth
is not due more to the free trade she has
between the States than her high protec-
tive tariff?
How does he account for the fact that
Canada, much of whose soil is immense.
ly fertile, has far less prosperity. She
has a protective tariff, | believe. She
has been helped immensely by England
and English capital. Is it not the lack
of this free trade with us that makes the
difference? Certainly her urgent call fol
reciprocity or commercial union show:
that She thinks so,