The Portland daily press., 1892-10-20

like demonstrating the value of free
trade or of protection by citing individual
| instances. Some can be found which
seem to show conclusively that free trade
is the most profitable policy, while others
tend just as strongly to the glorification
of protection. The truth is that there
are SO many other conditions besides
tariff policy that affect wages and prices
| and they are so interlaced that it is very
| difficult and oftentimes impossible to
separate them and assign to each it's exact
responsibility. 1t is possible that a bad
economic policy may exist for some
years without producing any noticeable
bad effect upon the business of the coun-
try. Its detrimental influence may be
offset by the favorable influence of some
other condition. If prosperity had fol-
lowed protective measure for a year or
two it would not necessarily follow that
that measure had been the cause of it. So
if the Mckinley bill were our first expert
ment in protetionism it would not follow
that the apparent prosperity existing at
| ~
the present time was necessarily attri-
butable in any degree to protection. 1t
needs the test of experience through
many years to settle the character and
tendency of an economic policy, whether
it be good or bad.
Now the policy of protection shas been
submitted to that test. For thirty years
our tariff policy has been one for protec-
ton as well as for revenue. If it were a
bad policy disastrous policy, certainly
thirty years experience would have dem
onstrated it. It's hardly possible that
during all that period its baneful infu-
ence would have been more than offset
by other conditions. 1t might have been
| for two or three or even half dozen
years, but in thirty years it would have
made itself so apparent that there could
be little doubt about it. Now what has
taken place during these thirty
years? The country has grown vast
ly in population and wealth, our
industries have been vastly multi
piled and the opportunities for profitable
employment vastly increased. The peo-
pie enjoy comforts today that they were
strangers to thirty years ago. Things
that are looked upon now as necessities
so-eommon have their use and enjoyment
become, were regarded as Injuries thirty
years ago, out of the reach of everybody
but the rich. We hear good deal now
az oil, hn
farmer and the Democratic Or
gar grows melancholy over his alleged
privations and hardships. But the farm
er of today enjoys comforts of life that
same with what is popularity known as
the laboring man. Never, says Mr.. Ed
ward Atkinson, were his wages so high,
and never would they purchase so many
of the necessaries and comforts. These
are facts which are patent to everybody
in middle life. Yet the opponents of the
| protective pollcyundertake to tell us that
this steady progress during the last thirty
wears has been made in the face of a bad
economic system. They tell us that dur
| ing all this time of rapid advancement in
national wealth and prosperity, protec-
ton has been milestone about the neck
of the people, dragging them down.
Does this accord with common sense? Is
it likely that the American people would
have attained degree of prosperity never
before enjoyed by nation of modern
times under an economic policy which
was constantly dragging them down? Is
it likely that the masses of the people
would have made such tremendous
strides as they have during the last
thirty years if they had been living under
an economic policy that was enabling
favored few to constantly and persistent
ly rob them?