St. Paul daily globe., 1895-11-19
THE MORAL SIDE.

-lllS ItepuDllCdu press Is IedrIulIy
indignant at the address delivered by
Ambassador Bayard at Edinburgh,
denouncing the protective system as
one of the most insidious and dam
gerous forms of state socialism. The
more recent the convert, the more in
tense his horror at this reflection
upon his newly accepted belief. So
the Chicago Tribune goes into par
oXisms of anguish at the reflection
that the representative of this coun-
try should condescend to placate
England's opinion by telling the
truth about an American policy. 1t
does not seem to have occurred to the
Tribune, and to other partisan writ
ers, that the protective system has
two distinct aspects. It may be
looked at through the political and
economic side, which is all that
these gentlemen seem capable of
perceiving. If we are to go into the
business of approving and uphold
ing every law that congress has
passed simply because congress
passed it, we shall have large con-
tract on our hands. Economically
considered, too, protection is SUBJ
ject to vigorous attack and to a GER
tain species of lame defense. But Mr..
Bayard, in his address, discarded
these phases altogether.
The occasion was one which called
for inquiry into the underlying prin-
ciples of things. In speaking to the
Philosophical society, Mr.. Bayard
was not discussing the American
government or any special American
law, but presenting a study of the
principle of individualism. In doing
so he dealt, properly and necessarily,
with the moral side Of the question.
We are not surprised that Repub-
lican writer's should be oblivious to
or incapable of understanding him.
L
that has appealed to them most
strongly, in the qualification which
it offers to the cupidity of individuals
and corporations. To one who an
a1yzes things carefully, the ques-
ton of protection is, above all other
things, a moral question. Whenever
it is clearly before the American
people in that light, when the essen
tial immortality of exerting the power
of the state to build up a private in
dustry, and teaching the people of a
nation that it is right to use politi-
cal power to take from one citizen
and give to another, Is understood by
all, the revulsion against it will be
as great as that which followed the
awakening of the nation to the ernor-
nifty Of human slavery.
Mr.. Bayard's thesis was that in
the independence of the individual
lies the germ of permanent and ma
tional progress. 1t was a protest
against state socialism in all it's
forms. Dealing with the various ex-
hibitions of state socialism in the
governments Of today, he could not
overlook the most notorious and Of
fensive of them all; which is the as
sumption by a state Of the right to
tax all it's citizens in order to pro-
mote the interest and the profits of
few. No dispassionate observer Of
our affairs can doubt that the moral
ideas encouraged by the protective
system are responsible for a great
part Of the corruption in American
public affairs. The proposition is
simple. If a representative in con-
liquity for a tariff act which he
knows will add $4,000 a year to the
profits Of the business in which he
is engaged, why should he not vote
for some other measure in considera-
tion Of $1,000 in cash paid to him in.
hand? What is the difference be-
tween the two propositions? The
one our protectionist friends call the
acceptance of bribe; the other they
glorify as the upholding of national
institutions and loyalty to business
interests.
The truth is that extenuation Of
the iniquity Of protectionism has dis
turbed, and, to some extent, de-
stroyed the moral sense Of those who
have accepted it as an article of