The Portland daily press., 1896-03-24
THE PRESS.
TUESDAY MARCH "a.
PROTECTION AND FREE COINAGE

In letter published elsewhere Mr.. S.
W. Thaxter takes the ground that there
is nothing homogeneous or Illogical in
uniting the idea of free coinage and pro-
lection. Indeed further along in his
letter he goes much beyond this and
claims that protection must be supple
lnented by free coinage in order to rem
der the former effective. Mr.. Thaxter
presents the question from two stand
points; first from that of the silver pro-
ducers; and second from that of general
industrial interests Viewing it from
the standpoint of the silver producers
Mr.. Thaxter takes the ground that pro-
tection to them by opening the mints to
their products is no more unreasonable
than protection to the Ohio wool growers
through tax on imported wool. What
is reasonable or unreasonable, or whether
one thing is more reasonable tnan anoth-
er is so purely matter of opinion and
depends SO much upon a PERSONS prede-
lections that 1t Is never very profitable to
discuss that point. The real question here
is whether the country can afford to set
up the kind Of protection that is asked
for the silver producers. Heretofore in
this country protection to home indus
tries has been applied almost exclusively
through duty upon the products of
competing foreign industries. If the sill
yer men asked that all silver bullion i'm
ported into this country should be SUBJ
ject to duty their request would be logi-
cal They would be asking for the same
kind of protection that the wool grower
asks for. But that is not what they
want or demand Their demand is that
the government buy all of their products
that they. see fit to offer it, This is alto
eether different kind of protection from
that which the wool grower asks or gets.
Once granted on the ground that it is a
reasonable way of protecting silver and
the door is wide open to the same reason
able way of protecting a multitude of
other products. One of the schemes of thu
Farmers Alliance of the West WAS the
establishment of government warehouses
to which the farmer could bring his pro-
ducts and leave them as pledge for a
loan Of money. The Farmers Alliance
the government to buy their products out
right as the silver men are asking. But
if the government is to furnish con-
st mt market for the silver producer, if
it is to buy all his wares, on the ground
that that is q reasonable way of protect
ing him, how can it refuse to buy the
products of the farmer. The farmer il
CT
miner, and there is no reason why he
should not be as well treated as the latter.
He can say as truthfully as the silver
miner that duties have little tendency to
protect him, and therefore it is reason
able TO give him another kind of protec-
ton. Once let the government enter
upon the policy of buying any sort of
products for the purpose of protecting it's
producer and it cannot logically stop I'M
til it has committed itself to the purchase
of everything produced at home that any
body sees fit to offer it. Hence fatal OBJ
Jeotion to the purchase by the government
of the silver mined in this country for
the purpose of protecting the miner and
mine owner is that it would
initiate policy that would reduce the
government to an aDsurdity. We are
inclined to think that Mr. Thaxter
though he may argue that this kind of
protection is not unreasonable would
not advocate it if there were nothing In
favor of it except the benefits that would
accruess to the silver miner.
The argument for the purchase by the
government of the silver miners product
upon which Mr.. Thaxter chiefly relies is
that the reconciliation of silver is nee
essary to protect the general industries of
the nation against foreign competitors
that for this purpose it is as necessary as
protective duties. On this branch of his
case Mr.. Thaxter cites the increasing
competition in agricultural products and
manufactured articles of eastern nations.
such as India and Japan, and claims
that their ability to compete has been due
YeEy largely TO the characterization of sill.