Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1890-03-28

The c'aim of the protectionist must
prosperity or the happiness or we'll
being Of the people Of this country.
If it does none of these things, then is
there no shadow of an excuse for its
continued existence. If it diminishes
them it is an active curse and its
speedy abolition is imperative. |
think we may safely assume that no
intelligent person really believes that
tariff laws independent of their inilu-
cnce on human conduct have any
intrinsic power to increase prosperity.
If any man INDUCES this supersttious
delusion, then to his intelligence
such as it may be this argument is
prosperity? Nothing more than the
possession in plenty of those things
which minister to our comfort and
happiness, and enable us to maintain
our lives. Those various articles pro
dnccd by Labor, comprehended under
the general term wealth. Then in
creased prosperity means increased
production relative to population: for
if production increases in the same
ratio rs the population, the per-capita
wealth will remain unchanged, and no
general increase in prosperity will have
taken place: When it is affirmed that
protection increases general prosperity,
it is meant that it increases it with ref
ence TO some standard of measure, and
this standard must be the degree of
prosperity that would have existed in
its absence. Then the contention of the
protectionist is that protection causes
the people of this country to produce
more than they would in its absence
And this is pure assumption that from
the very nature Of the case admits of no
AltlAAt1t1ll ct ltIi- ltl Alo NtilNtlN dblt BA-
tension of human provision can enable
us to say what degree of prosperity
would have existed in the absence of
protection. Being necessarily igno-
rant of the magnitude Of one of the
terms of the equation how can we
compare them and decide which is the
greaterY The only means we have of
reaching any conclusion in this way is
by comparison of the prosperity of
countries that practice protection with
that Of countries which have aban-
doned it, or by a comparison of the
different degrees of prosperity enjoyed
in the same country under protection,
and in its absence. And this is what
IS called the inductive or historical ar
gument, and is almost if not entirely
worthless in this case on account Of
the presence of SO many disturbing
factors. If all the conditions of two
countries, or two different periods of
the same country were identical-ex-
cepting protection then we could draw
valid conclusions from such compar-
ison; instead of this, however, they
are always very dissimilar The prob
lem is hopelessly complicated by the
character of the different peoples, their
respective degrees of enlightenment,
energy. capacity, surrounding with
reference to enemies, with reference to
climate, soil, productivenesS, presence
or absence of natural sources Of wealth,
ratio of population to productiveness,
stage of growth, geographical location,
and many other circumstances that
can never be excluded, nor their proper
values assigned And these are
usually sufficient to utterly invalidate
any conclusions drawn from such COM
parsons.
am quite content to concede the
protectionist all the legitimate support
that his pretensions can derive from
this inductiye argument; and if he
takes as the basis of his induetions
the history of all mankind in all ages
and countries, the opponents of pro-