The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1892-10-21
SUCCESS OF THE TARIFF.

Awarded Ihe First Prize, $50, offered
by the American Protective Tariff League
for the Best Essay on the Tariff.-COn-
petition is open to all Seniors in Ameri-
can ColIeges.-The Present Prize Essay
is Entitled, HAS the new Tariff Proved
Benehclal?" and it Herewith Partly APP
pears.
MIR. HERBERT W. DAMoN's ESSAY.
Every problem of public finance in
wolves problem of private finance. The
public revenues can be gathered only
from the accretions of individual toll. It
behooves every government, therefore,
so to distribute the burdens of taxation
that they shall rest as equitably and
lightly as possible on it's individual
citizens.
The Free Trader insists that inter-
national trade is mutually profitable,
evun though the advantages and disad-
vantages be only relative. If one country
possesses superior facilities over another
in every branch of industry there will
be gain in commerce if, the countries
produce those things in which they are,
respectively, at the greatest advantage
and the least disadvantage. Trade unre-
sisted would, doubtless. lead to this re-
suit; but the protectionist can see no re-
sultant gain to the country possessing
superior facilities in all directions,
OUR DOMESTIC ADVANTAGES.
Apply this doctrine to the United
States. We have territory covering all
the most desirable part of temperate
zone, and extending southwark into the
sub-trOpical regions. We need ask
little, in agriculture, from any part of
the earth except the strictly tropical
countries. We have as rich mines of all
the most important metals as exist. AS
to our people, not only is the original
Yankee stock possessed of rare native
skill in every kind of industry, but we
have drawn upon all the Nations of
Christendom for the peculiar talent that
each one possesses. There is no reason
why one cannot produce nearly all that
we use, aside from tropical growths, with
as little labor as any competitor. Yet it
is true. nevertheless, that our superiority
over the Nations of Europe in agricul-
ture is far greater than in any other
line of industry. In so far, then, as the
principle of Professor Cairnes, one of the
ablest of Free Trade writer's, operated, we
should all become tillers of the soil.
Would this He to the highest interest of
America?
The first consideration that leads me
to return a negative answer to this is: He
whose labor is most fruitful can affort to
give most in return for what he buys. If
the American manufacturer or miner can
produce more in given time than his
European competitor, then he can give
more in exchange for his food and raw
materials.
The only escape from this conclusion
must be found in the lower standard of
living prevalent abroad. If the con-
sumption of the foreigner relative to his
production is less than in the case of the
American, then our farmer might look
for better terms abroad Such might be
the case if the European manufacturer
were forced to it. Rather than turn to
agriculture he would reduce his profits
till he was on an equal footing with the
neighboring farmer. But to expect him
to do so, as long as he has monopoly of
the American market, is to ascribe to
him motives that are not ordinarily the
the springs of commercial activity. At
the same time, the knowledge of what he
will do, when driven to it, serves as a
potential check upon American enter
prise. Herein seems to lie the funda-
mental error of the Free Trader. He
dOoulhCo OubU
his crops for European manufactures,
will retain all the advantages incident to
the fertility of American soil. He for
gets that the manufacturer is as much of
a monopolist in his way as the farmer in
his, and will insist on sharing all the
special facilities of the latter.
RESTRICTED INFORMATION.
Again, it is urged that to restrict i'm
portation of foreign goods is to limit to
the same extent our export trade. This
postulate derives its force from double
assumption: l. That the extent of its
foreign trade is an infallible index of the
degree of prosperity of country. 2.
That exports and imports must exactly
balance.
The first premise is the fundamental
point at issue. The protectionist must
believe that protectiva tariff reduces
the amount of foreign trade. He claims
that home market is created for our
farm products, so that there is much less
to sent abroad. But is this detrimental
to American interests? Is the foreign
market superior to the home market?
Can and will the foreign manufacturer
pay more in commodities for his provis-
ions than the home producer? The foreign
market is, at best, an uncertain factor.
Each country endcavors, so far as
possible, to supply its own needs. When
the home supply is insufficient the out
side world is called upon to make good
the deficit. Foreign demand is, there
fore, approximately constant. We may
get rid of small part of our crops
abroad, but to throw the whole, or any
large part, upon the world market would
result in prices ruinous to American and
European farmer alike.
OUR EXPORT TRADE.
This gives US basis for the discussion
of the second problem. If the foreign
demand is practically fixed, then our ex.
port trade will not be greatly affected by
restricting importation. The barter
principle of the Free Traders is, doubtless,
the ultimate basis of trade; but it is
such far away, shadowy ultimate that
we can drive a good many profitable cash
bargains before we reach it. That it is
not directly applicable is abundantly
demonstrated by facts.
Take our trade with single countries
first. In round numbers we exported to
England in 1890 goods to the value of
$685., 200, 900, while our imports from the
same country amounted to but $751;, 0O0,-
600. This gives ratio of "a to in
favor of our export trade. Our English
trade has maintained about this relation
for years. To Belgium we sent goods
valued at $26, 000,00 and received in re-
turn SO, 900, 900 worth. A hard bargain
that for the United Statesl For Brazil
the figures are: Exports. S12. 600. 900: