The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-11-04

may Be knocked down toshe lowest margin. and
II destroyed altogether, - much the better" In
this fashion 'fres trade England ievies larger
amount OF customs taxation. both In amount
and reckoned by head OF population, than any
COUNTRY in Europe. BuI she does 20 only on
contemplating imports: whilst admitting free
every commodity which completes With. under
sells, or extinyuishes homs production. Was
there ever apparently 50 suicidal poicTE
The free trade policy Of England thus
described by Lord Mssham il exactly the
free trade or revenue tariff policy which
the Democratic party advocates for the
United States. Whether the Democratic
party speaks through: the Chicago plank
OF 3 tariff for revenge only. or through
Cleveland's tariff message of 1887 and the
Mills blu, it holds tBat duties should be
on non-compesing products. The first
principle of the Republican policy. ex-
pressed by the Mckinley law. Is that
duties should be on competing products.
Lord Masham holds that Great Britain
hiss not profited by her forty years OF free
trade. Under free trade her exports have
not begun to pay for ner imports. and the
year 1892 when the excess of imports has
reached 500. o00, 900 is one Of the worst
years that England has known in recent
times. In the United States the balance
of trade is the other way. The exports
greatly exceed the imports, and the
year 1892 is ono Of the most prosperous this
country ever knew. Lord Nashsm COM
pares England and France as follows:
The French people consume as much food per
head OF population as the English But the
United Kingdom imports s5o00o0, 200 more of
competing foods than France does, the latter
under policy Of not srnmoderate food duties
producing nearly all she consumes herself
Disoarding the 'tribate" question for the
moment, let it b assumed that the United
Kingdom pays for such extra import by $500, Co.,
oo0 Of goods exported. she has then LOCO, oo0,-
600 more foreign trade: than France has. But
which 10 better oil, the United Kingdom, whose
national profit 10 oonhnsd to the labor, etc, in
VOWED in the $50, 600 0og export, or France, who
gains the double profit. FIRST On the $50o, 100000
OF food primarily proeuced. and then on the
$500 COO, 600 of return custom given by the homo
producerf Even though the cost TO consumers
in France may be greater, the margin OF national
profit involved in such transactions 10 too great
for anyone-exceps tse impenitent political
free trader-to doubt which policy 10 the wiser.
Lord Masham could have got still more
with the United Safes. Lord Masham
argues that the basis of England's COM
meroial greatness w&s laid during her pro-
lection era; that the hard times which
brought about free tsade were the result of
wars, not of tariffs; that the prosperity
which followed came not because but in
spite of free trade, and in conclusion
points to the ruin of England's agricul-
ture and her recent loss of manufactures
as proof that free trade has not benefited
Great Britain, because. as Lord Salisbury
said, sit is not business"
II any country co1,ld make free trade q
success England could with her small
area. large manufacturing industries. great
shipping interests aEd extensive colonial
markets, but her success has been so poor
that Lord Salisbury: who once believed in
1t. cynically says tsat "whils it may be
noble, it is not busieess."
The statistics of the production of iron
and steel by Great Britain IN the first six
months of 1892 show great shrinkage As
compared with the production of either
half Of 1891, which was itself a year of
reduced productions as compared with
former years.
The production of :Bessemer steel rails in
the first halt of 1872 was 2l1,S S4 gross
tons. against 40. 1913 tons in the first six
months of 1891, and 240,053 tons in the
second six months Of 1891. The total pro-
duction of 662. 676 tons in 1891 vas the
smallest since 1879, 5ut the production in
1892 promises to be much smaller than in
1891. As far back as 1881 Great Britain
produced over one million tons of Besse-
mer steel rails, and as late as 1890 she also
produced over one million tons. The
shrinkage in 1891 ard 1892 is therefore seen
to be very great.
With free raw mgaerials for the use of
her iron and steel n manufacturers and the
markets of the word at their command,
the iron and stee. industries of Great
Britain are declining at very rapid rate.
If free trade, with she help Of low wages,
is not q success IN Great Britain why
should this country adopt policy that
has become the architect of impending
ruin for the nation shat adopted it,