Waterbury evening Democrat., 1890-05-23

learned that France, England, Italy and Switzerland had agreed to make joint address to our Government protesting against the moro oppressive features Of the bill now before Congress for chang ing the administration of the customs laws in the direction of still greater re- Striction. This Lyons paper goes on to show that we have ourselves given an example of retaliatory legislation in the resolution passed by Congress several years ago authorizing the President to take measures of reprisal against Can ada. The editor closes with these words: 'They could not be surprised, therefore, if the Governments of coun- tries whose commerce is threatened by the application of the Mckinley bill should do the same thing on their own be half, should this ill-advised measure be adopted with the oppressive and out rageous provisions which arouse against it so justly the indignation of the com mercial classes of the Old World"
 This may be resented by us as an un- warrantable interference on the part of foreign nations with our right to pass such laws as we please; but it will not help matters to ask what right Europe has to intermeddle in our affairs. The point which deserves our attention is that Europe may hit back and hurt us worse than we can hurt it. Snch action is very probable. The most recent news from Holland is that the Dutch also will take hand in this business of retalia- tion. We sell vast quantity of petrol leum to them, and they have threatened to put heavy duties on it in retaliation for the enormous increase of the duty on Sumatra tobacco as proposed by MT. Nc Kinley's committee. And so it goes on to the end of the chapter. Tariff battles are in prospect for us which will prove as foolish and wasteful as the usual rate wars between railroads.
 David Hume startled England more than century ago by asserting that each particular nation is benefited by the prosperity of every other nation. England had believed up to that time that her prosperity could come only by injuring other nations. It was thought necessary to shut out foreign wares, and thus to cripple the industries of foreign countries before England could prosper.
 But Hume showed that the more pros porous other nations were, the better | able they would be to buy English goods.
 The truth of this is now admitted by | practically all intelligent men; and it is rather late in the worlds history for the protectionists to come forward with their idea of non-intercourse and of making | the country commercially indepen- | dent" Trade between nations has | always been recognized as one of the | chief civilizing agencies in the world.
 And who is harmed by it? One man | does not trade with another unless he | finds it to his advantage to trade. If the
 market for our farm products can be en- | larged in foreign countries, where is the
 justice in Congress passing laws which | endanger that market? Are we not only
 to give the highest kind of protection to
 manufacturers, but also to ask the farmer
 to surrender his foreign market for the l benefit of the manufacturer. And are l the farmers to be hoodwinked by pre- tense of protection for them, which, as 1 protectionist papers have already con- | fessed, will do the farmers no good al l all?