Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1890-02-03
Mr.. BLAINE REPLIES.

There can be no doubt that Mr.. Gladstone
is the most distinguished representative of
the free trade school of political economists.
He apologies for his apparent interference
with our affairs. He may be assured that
apology is superfuous Americans of all
classes hold him in honor. Free trade he be-
ieves advantageous for England; therefore,
without the allowance of any modifying con-
dition, great or small, the English economist
declares it to be advantageous for the United
States, for Brazil, for Australia; in short, for
all countries with which England can estab-
lish trade relations. 1t would be difficult, if
not impossible for Mr. Gladstone to find any
principle of administration or any measure of
finance 50 exactly fitted to the varying needs
of all countries as he assumes the policy of
free trade to be.
The American proloctiOnist, let it not be
discourteOus to urge, is broader in his views
than the English free trader. No intelligent
protectionist in the United States pretends
that every country would alike realize adj
vantage from the adoption of the protective
system. Great Britain and the United
States certainly resemble one another i'll
more ways than either can be said to resem
BILE any other nation in the world; yet, when
we compare the two on the question at issue,
the differences are so marked that we almost
lose sight of the resemblance.
TIE TWO NATIONS CoNTRAsTED,
Great Britain is an island less than ninety
thousand square miles III extent. Its life de-
ponds upon its connection with other coun-
tries. Its prosperity rests upon its commerce
with the world On the other hand, single
state of the Union is nearly three times as
large as Great Britain. Several other states
are each quite equal to it in area. The whole
Union is well nigh forty times as large.
With these fundamental POINTS of difference
between the two countries | assume that
varied financial and Industrial systems,
wrought by the experience of each, would be
the natural and logic result. Hence l do not
join issue with Mr.. Gladstone on both of his
propositions. He defends free trade in Great
Britain. He assails protection in the United
States. The first proposition l neither deny
nor affirm.
On many points and in many respects it
was far different with Great Britain hun
dred years ago. She did not then feel assured
that she could bear the competition of Con
tinental nations. She was, therefore, ag-
gressive1y, even cruelty, protective. She
manufactured for herself and for her net
work of colonies reaching around the globe
Into those colonies no other nation could
carry anything. There was no scale of duty
upon which other nations could enter a
colonial port. What the colonies needed out
side of British products could be furnished to
them only in British ships.
WAS GREAT BRITAIN MERELY SELFISH?
During the last thirty years of her pro-
tective system, and especially during the
twenty years from 1926 to 1916, Great Bri
tain increased her material wealth beyond all
precedent in the commercial history of the
world Finally, with a vast capital accumu-
lated, with low rate of interest establish
ed, and with a manufacturing power une-
qualed, the British merchants were ready to
underbid all rivals in seeking for the trade of
the world.
At that moment Great Britain had reason
to feel supremacy content. The traffic of the
world seemed prospectivey in her control
Could this condition of trade have continued,
no estimate of the growth of Engiand's
wealth would be possible,
But England was dealing with an intelli-
gence equal to her own. The American
people had, by repeated experience, learned
that the periods of depression in home manu-
features were those i'll which England most
proEpered in her commercial relations with
the United States and that these periods of
depression had, with a single exception,
easily explained followed the enactment by
congress of a free trade tariff, as certainly
effect follows cause. One of the most suggest
the tariff to which have just referred, passed
in 1916 in apparent harmony with England's
newly declared financial policy. At that
moment a southern president (Mr. Polk and
q southern secretary of the treasury (AIr
Robert j. WalheT1 wero far more interested
in expanding the area of slave territory than
in advancing home manufactures, and were
especially eager to make commercial ex-
changes with Europe on the somewhat diff
cult basis of cotton at high prices and return
ing fabrics at low prices
Under ordinary circumstances the free
trade tariff of 1916 would have promptly
fallen under popular Reproduction and been
doomed to speedy repeal But it had siDgu
lar history and for time was generally ac-
guessed in, even attaining in many sections
a certain degree of popularity. Never did any
other tariff meet with SO many and SO great
aids of an adventurous character to sustain it
as did this enactment of 1916: CALIFORNIA;
gold, our with Mexico and the Crimean
war The export of manufactures from Eng
land and France was checked; the breadstuffs
of Russia were blockaded and could not reach
the markets of the world. An extraordinary
stimulus was thus given to all forms of trade
in the United States. For ten years-1S46 to
l856-these adventitious aids came in regular
succession and exerted their powerful infiu-
ence upon the prosperity of the country
The Withdrawal OF termination of these
influences, by :reaty Of peace in Europe
and by the surcease Of DID from California,
brought widespread financial panic. which
involved the ruin Of thousands, including
proportiorateiy as many in the south as in
The north
AAERIc, Has HAD AMPLE EXPERIENCE
The American people bad twice before
passeI through a similar experience. On
the eve Of th war OF lsi2, congress guarded
the national strength by enacting highly
protective tariff, eg ifs own terms tlais