Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1892-10-27
TARIFF PRIZE ESSAY.
A NOTABLE PAPER BY HERBERT
W. DAMON, or OHIO.

Set Forth by College student-Log-
ical Reasoning in Favor of the McKin-
ley Law-Free Trade Dissected.
The prize Of $50 offered BY the Ameri
can Protective Tariff league for the best
essay on the tariff by a college senior
was won by Ar. Herbert W. Damon. His
argument makes a particularly strong
paper, "a will be seen by the following
copious extracts:
Every problem Of public finance in
wolves problem Of private finance.
The public revenues can be gathered
only from the accretions Of individual
toll. 1t behooves every government,
therefore. so to distribute the burdens of
taxation that they shall rest as equitably
and lightly as possible on its individual
citizens.
The free trader insists that interna-
tional trade is mutually profitable, even
though the advantages and disadvan-
tages be only relative. If one country pos
sesses superior facilities over another in
every branch of industry there will still
be gain in commerce if the countries
produce those things in which they are,
respectively, at the greatest advantage
and the least disadvantage. Trade I'M
restricted would doubtless lead to this
result, but the protectionist can see no
resultant gain to the country possessing
superior facilities in all directions.
Il. 4
States. We have a territory covering
all the most desirable part Of a temper
ate zone, and extending southwark into
the subtropical 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 il is true, nevertheless, that our su-
periority over the nations of Europe in
agriculture 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 writers.
operated, we should all become tillers of
the soil. Wonld this be to the highest
interest Of America?
The first consideration that leads me
to return a negative answer is this: He
whose labor is most fruitful can afford
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 be was on an equal footing with the
uelghboring farmer. But to expect him
to do SO as long as be has monopoly of
the American market is to ascribe to
hlln motives that are not ordinarily the
springs Of commercial activity.
At the same time the knowledge Of
what he viii do when driven to it serves
as a potential check upon American en-
terprise. Herein seems to lie the funda-
mental error Of the free trader. He as
sumes that the American, exchanging
his crops for European manufactures.
will retain all the advantages incident
TO the fertility of American soil. He
forgets that the manufacturer is as
much of monopohst in his way as the
farmer in his. and will insist on sharing
all the special facilities Of the latter.
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: /. That the extent of it's
foreign trade is an infallible index of
the degree Of prosperity Of country
p That exports and imports must ex-
actly balance.
The first premise is the fundamental
point at issue. The protectionist must
believe that protective tariff reduces
the amount Of foreign trade. Heclaims
that a home market is created for our
farm products. SO that there is much
less to send abroad. But is this detri-
mental 10 American interests? Is the
foreig. market superior to the home
narket2 Can and will the foreign man
ufacturer pay more in commodities for
his provisions than the home producer?
The foreign market is at best an uncer-
tain factor Each country endeavors.
50 far as possible, 10 supply its own
needs. When the home supply is insult
ticient the outside world is called upon
to make good the deficit Foreign de-
mand is therefore approximately con
slant. We may get rid Of a small part
of orr crops abroad, but to throw the
whole OF any large part upon the world
market would result in prices ruinous to
tho American and European farmer
alike.
This gives us a basis for the discus
sion Of the second problem If the for
eigu demand Is practically fixed, then
oUr export trade viii not be greatly af-
fected by restricting importation. The
barter principle Of the free traders is
doubtless the ultimate basis Of trade.
but it is such Il PARKWAY, shadowy ulti-
mate that we can drive a good many
profitable cash bargains before we reach