Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1892-10-22
TARIFF PRIZE ESSAY.
A NOTABLE PAPER BY HERBERT
w. DAMON, OF OHIO.


Set Forth by College student-Log-
icaI Reasoning in Favor of The McE5n-
ley Law-Free Trade Dissected.
The prize Of $3.50 offered by the Ameri
can Protective Tariff league for the best
essay on the tariff by a college senior
was won by 0Ir. Herbert ". Damon. His
argument makes a particularly strong
paper, as viii be seen by the following
copious extracts:
Every problem Of public finance in
wolves a 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 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 oyce another in
every branch Of industry there will still
be a gain in commerce if the countries
produce those things in which they are,
respectively, at the greatest advantage
and the least disadvantage. Trade IN
restricted would doubtless lead to this
result, but the pTotectionist can see no
resultant gain to the country possessing
superior facilities in all directions.
Apply this doctrine to the United
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 al
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.
" ~ 40 Il t4Ds LE q ifltitcSs iillI our SUI
perlorlty 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 writer's.
operated, we should all become tillers Of
the soil. Would 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 a given time than
his European competitor, then he can
give more in exchange for his food and
raw materials.
Tie 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
neighhOring farmer. But to expect him
to dc so as long as he has monopoly of
the American market is to asclibe to
him motives that are not ordinarily 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 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.
viii retain all the advantages incident
to the fertility Of American soil. He
forgets that the manufacturer is as
much of monopolist in his way as the
farmer in his, and viii 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 a double
assumption: 1. That the extent of its
foreign trade is an infallibie index of
the degree of prosI Gritty of a country.
2. That exports and imports must ex-
actly balance.
The first premise is the fundamental
point a. issue. The protectionist must
believe that a protective tariff reduces
the amount of foreign trade. FIeclains
that home market is created for our
farm products, so that there is much
less to send abroad. But is this detri-
mental TO American interests? Is tha
foreign market superior to the home
market? Can and will the foreign man
ufacturer pay more III commodities for
his provisions than the home producer?
The foreign market is at best an uncer.
tain factor. Each country endaavors
so far as possible, to supply it's own
needs When the home supply is insuf-
ficient the outside world is called upon
to make good the deficit. Foreign de-
mand is therefore approximately con
slant 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 ruinons TO
the American and European farmer
alike
This gives us basis. for the discus
sion Of the second problem. If the for
eign demand IS practically fixed. then
our export trade viii not be greatly af-
fected by restricting importation. The
barter principle of the nee traders is
doubtless the ultimate basis of trade
but it Is such faraway, shadowy ulti-
mate that we can drive good MANY
profitable cash bargains before we reach
it. That it is not directly applicable is