The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1893-07-06
sAUK CENTRE HERALD.
THURSDAY. IuLy 8. 1898.
EALLIcIEs OF FREE TRADE.

FALLICIES OF FREE TRADE.
The Minneapolis Times devotes nearl,
a column in asserting that unless W.
import goods from foreign countries fre'
of duty we cannot export, and that by
reason of protective tariff fair ex
change of commodities is not effected
In other words unless we buy from tor
eign countries and admit their products
free of duty instead of manufacturing
the goods ourselves we cannot sell to
them, and that as the Mckinley bill
levies tariff on certain importations
from foreign countries (which our dem.
ocratic friends assert is paid by us) which
it is claimed we get in exchange for our
commodities we cannot expect to sell to
them. This Is substantially the same
old Goods for Goods theory which
has long ago been buried under noun
tains of facts, and so deep that 1t was
supposed that it could never be brought
to light again, bu. it seems the Times IL
not aware of it. Let as examine into
the facts again and see what's the result:
In 1916 Robert ]. Walker Of Mississippi,
who was then secretary OF the treasury,
and probably the ablest thinker and
writer on the free trade side Of the ques-
ton that the country ever produced.
said, remove from agriculture all our
restrictions and by its own unfettered
power it will break down all foreign
restrictions, and ours being removed we
would feed the hungry and clothe the
poor of our fellow men through all the
densely peopled nations OF the world"
The democratic party accepted this
theory and attempted to reduce it to
practice. We were going out to capture
the markets of the world and had no
eliminating atrocity of class legislation
to keep out imports" We were going
to "buy from other nations that they
might buy from us" and we were to be.
come the leading commercial nation of
the world and feed the hungry and
clothe the poor of other countries.
What was the result? Our exports of
breadstuffs fell off from sos, OOO, 900 In
1S47 to $21, 600, 900 in 1851 and much
less in 1852, and the public debt in
creased many millions and the expendi-
lures of the government from 1S47 to
1861 exceeded its receipts by over ST.
100000. Although we bought from
others it seems that they did not buy
from us, at least until we paid transpor-
tation On our farm products to the sea
board. then paid the transatlantic
charges and sold them ''in the markets
of the world" in competition with other
countries and at lower prices than these
other countries could sell them for. And
strange to say, in spite Of the low duties
on our imports and the low prices we
received for our supplies and the cheap
ness of goods, we had neither gold or
silver enough to serve as basis for a
redeemable currency. Our gold, silver
and bonds went across the water to pay
for our imports and our English cous-
ms" whom the democratic party so
love to initiate, actually brought suit
against US to enforce payment OF our
obligations. We were rich in one class
of commodities, the products of the
farm, and of these the people of the
western states had an abundance, so
much so that in many instances they
were left to perish IN the helds. There
was no market for corn and it was
burned for fuel by the farmers Of illinois,
while thousands In our cities were starry
ing and the fields of that state were
underlaid with deposits of coal quietly
sleeping in the ground. Of manufactures
we had little or none. In order to
further show the fallacy OF the theory
that we must buy of others that we may
sell to them, that we must buy some
thing that we don't want that we may
sell something's proposition utterly
devoid OF common sense, but q very
favorite maxim with free traders-let us
look at our trade with Great Britain.
In 1865 we sold to that country $751;
100000 more than we bought of her.
The next year we sold her $S5, 0OO, 900
more than we bought of her, and with
some fluctuations the discrepancy con-
tinued to increase till in 1881, when we
sold of our products to Great Britain
$500. 900 900 more than she was able
to sell to US of her own, and for the
period since 1865 Great Britain pur-
chased of our products in excess of her
sales of her products to as reaches the
enormous total of $4,054, 900 900 and
all the while we were working under
that fraud and robbery" known as
republican protection, and which is
regarded as Unconstitutional" by our
democratic friends. On the other hand
England, operating under free trade
tariff, which we seem to be so anxious
to initiate, in her trade from 1880 to
1884, inclusive, sold to Russia, Germany,
Holland, France, the United States and
China $500. 0O0. 900 less than she
bought of them, Notwithstanding the
fact that she is claimed to be the great
est manufacturing nation on the globe,
manufacturing her goods to sell and
pushes them into every possible market,
and at times has crammed them down
the threats of people with the bayonets,
as she did opium to the Chinese.
The trade, of the United States, as
also of Great Britain, with China, South
America, Germany and Russia all en-
phasize The same fact-that exports and
imports bear no relations whatever to
each other, but that nations are con-
trolled by the same principles that actu-
ate individuals, they purchase what
they want, when they want it and in
such quantities as they want in the
most favorable market irrespect;ve of