Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1892-10-31

I'LL ne was on an equal 1Oorlng With the
neighboring farmer But to expect him
to do so as long as he has a monopoly of
the American market is to ascribe 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 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 a monopolist 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 a double
assumption: /. That the extent of its
foreign trade is an infallible index of
the degree Of prosperity of country.
2. That exports and imports must ex-
actly balance.
The first premise is the fundamental
point at issue. The protectionist must
believe that q protective 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 send abroad. But is this detri-
mental to American interests? Is the
foreign market superior to the home
market? 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,
so far as possible, to supply its own
needs. When the home supply is insult
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 ruinous to
the American and European farmer
alike.
| This gives us a basis for the discus
sion of the second problem. If the for
eign demand is practically fixed, then
our export trade will not be greatly af-
fected by restricting importation. The
barter principle of the FREQ traders is
doubtless the ultimate basis of trade,
but it is such a faraway, shadowy ulti-
mate that we can drive o good many
profitable cash bargains before we reach
it. That it is not directly applicable is
sbundantly demonstrated by facts.
Take our trade with single countries
first. In round numbers we exported to
England in 1890 goods to the value of
1886, 000,0 900, while our imports from the
same country amounted to but 1857 ,O00,-
900. This gives a 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,O00, and received in
return $4,000, 600 worth. A hard bar
gain that for the United States! For
Brazil the figures are: Exports, $12,000,-
600; and imports, $780, 100000, or five
times as large importation as exporta-
ton.
Only three times in the last nineteen
years have ouy total imports exceeded
our total exports. But surely this is q
great calamity. What possible good can
come to us from exporting large
amount more than we receive in return!
If we apply to the individual the argu'
ment implied in this question we must
regard the spendthrift as most enviable.
He is continually getting back all OF
more than he gives The trouble with
the free trade argument is that they
assume that because a permanent excess
of imports is not desirable therefore a
temporary excess is unfortunate. Eng.
land annually imports much more than
she exports, and contrary to free trade
theories this condition has every mark
of permanence. But who supposes that
England could exact this annual tribute
from other countries If she had not first
got them in debt to her? We want q
favorable balance of trade, not as a
mark of servitude, but as an evidence OF
thrift.
The profits of the farmers as a class
are determined by the general laws OF
distribution. Those who have once en-
tered upon n given line Of work do moi
readily change to something else. But
new generation is constantly coming
upon the stage and they are turned this
way or that, to the farm or the factory
according to tho combined influence Of
attractions or repulsions and emolu
ments in the various occupations. Here
is force necessarily tending to equal
ize the status Of the several classes Of
workers The only question for the
farmer to settle is whether he is likely
to improve his condition by striking 8
balance with the inferior workman Of
Europe, mourning the expense Of ocean
transit and suffering annoyance from
the uncertainty Of foreign market, OF
whether he is best off as he is, averag
ing up his lot with that Of the superior
American artisan, and finding con
slant and reliable market for 95 pei
; cent. of his products right at his door
He will also take into account the fac
that great part of his most lucrative
crops would be absolutely worthless bu'
for the presence of the neighboring fac
tory town.
By the combined influence of almos
unlimited land, highly perfected ma
chinery and cheap transportation thu
Dakota wheat grower can undersell hi
Yorkshire contemporary in the markets
of Liverpool. Does any one imagin,
that the great railroad system which
makes this possible would now exis
had our country not possessed an arm.
of trained artisans when the locomotiv,