The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-02-03
THEORY AND FACT.

Our morning contemporary, in attempt
ing to reply to our structures on its tariff
nonsense, shuffies about not q little in its
endeavor to conceal from its readers the
facts it pretends to answer. 1t raises a
new issue each time and never dares to
quote our argument. We here give in full
the argument of our Republican neighbor:
We said free trade is dogma that grew out
OF slavery, in the hearts of men who never
earned their own living and who had monopoly
on great staple. THE HERALD denies this
and refers to the writer's of political economy
in England. We were not talking about Eng
land but the United States. But on
our side, all the founders of the Rep ublic were
protective tariff men and the arguments they
used are the same that are still used. The in
vention of the cotton gin and the erection of a
cotton raising aristocracy first gave tie dogma
of free trade standing in our country, and the
truth is the truth.
But it happens that the truth is not the
talk contained in the foregoing extract.
The revolt of the American colonies was in
part rising against the protective system;
and such reason was specified in the Dec
claration of Independence. King GEORGE
was denounced for "giving his assent to
acts OF legislation "for cutting off our
trade with the rest of the world'
When national freedom was won, the
United States applied the principle of free
dom in exchange in the broadest manner
and fearlessly carried out the provisions
in the constitution forbdding any state to
make laws restricting commerce between
itself and any of the others. Not the least
service done by this country for the cause
Of human liberty of action was to show, by
giving each the freest scope for individual
energy and effort that large states can
trade freely with small states; that those
with like or unlike Industries
can trade freely; that agricultural
states can freely trade with manufacturing
ones; that mining regions can trade freely
with grazing regions; in short that every
conceivable occupation in any and every
situation thrives best with free exchanges
with every other. II there ever has been a
historical demonstration of any thing, then
the benefits of free exchange have been
thousand times demonstrated in the United
States.
WEBSTER remarked in one of his speeches
that If there De any such thing as an
American system-a system which we can
civilized world. it must be that of absolute
free trade, each state or nation providing
for its own needs and expenses, each state
freely open to all corners, securing peace
and safety TO persons and property while
within its borders.
As to American authorities being pro-
tectionists, not reputable author of ac-
knowledged standing on political economy
in America has been protection
list 1t is true that HAMILTON, a
statesman of ability, was pro-
tectionist, and that few relics of his
reasoning form the basis of the so-called
arguments of the high tariff advocates and
benefciaries; but none Of them dare quote
HAMLToN's argument in full, for that
would be suicide.
AS to the statement that "all the founders
of the republic were protective tariff men,
nothing could be further from the truth.
ADAM SMITHS Wealth of Nations was
published in the same year that the Declar-
alton of independence was adopted That
some of the founders of the repnblic had
not clear ideas of international trade is.
therefore, not very surprising. Their first
tariff, however, was less than 90 per cent.
and was expected by them to be only
temporary expedient. In the modern sense,
they were not protectionists at all.
In England the conditions are altogether diff
ferent, and the writers referred to worte to
those conditions. When England, through a
tarl1, had gathered more money and erected
more machinery than all the world outside
possessed; when she had more ships than all
the world outside; when it was but step from
her mines to her factories and but another from
her factories TO her ships and when she had
ouch surplus Of pauper labor that the govern
ment was forced to ship tens of thousands of
them to foreign countries; then her statesmen
and writer's OF political economy decided that
no other land on earth could compete with
theirs in the manufacture Of ordinary goods and
wares, and became furious free-tarders.
As before, the chief trouble with this
visionary theory about the progress of
England is that all the facts are against it.
England, like all the rest of the world, was
q protective tariff country through all her
barbaric and semi barbaric stages. She
had protection" from the earliest times
up to 1850. Her greatest prosperity under
protection" was reached in 1900, when
her wealth per head amounted to SS25.
From 1900 to 1910 during an era of "pro-
tection'' the wealth declined to $3.50 per
head.
England began preparing for free trade
In 1876, forced into it by the starvation of
people IN Ireland especially, and adopted
free trade as policy in 1860.
The wealth per head in Great Britain IN
1877 was 81, $50, an increase of $500 since
1870 That is, the increase in wealth under
seventeen years Of revenue tariff ex-
ceeded the total increase under s'p-o- |
tection'' in nearly thousand years.
Thus, the Tf'ibune's theory that England
adopted tariff for revenue only, after she |
had first enriched herself through sspro- |
tection' turns out to be dream. There is |
nothing in it.