The record-union., 1897-11-07

| thereby elevate the other nations to our
| level?''
To which We may reply that II might
| do so, but the probabilities are stronger
| 10 the contrary. 1t is far more likely
| that ii would not alone fail to lift them
| up. but would pull US down. And in
support of this we need only observe
| the remarkable difference in the be-
| havior and tendency of a buyer of ner-
| ehandise to those displayed by seller.
A buyer has no need of merging his
| individuality. If he is possessed of GER
| tain ideas at home, he can freely carry
them With him abroad without disad-
vantage. The seller, however, soon per-
| celVes that his chances for success lies
| largely in his power and Willingness
| at adaptation. He soon finds that the
price Of success is largely centered in
the abandonment of his individual pre-
conceived opinions and in the prompt
acquiesence and full acceptance Of the
opinions prevailing in the country in
which he is selling his goods.
| AT hrst this may be repugnant to him,
! but as necessity forces this upon him,
he is obliged to bend to il. In time
this becomes fixed and his opinions
have undergone complete change, and
ne is no longer an America >~ttizSn. as
We understand American citizenship.
| Under restriction of foreign trade we
are almost altogether buyers in the
foreign countries, as the greater part
of our exports being agricultural
staples they are sold at home in our
wheat pits and in our cotton exchanges.
But under free trade, we would be-
! come nation Of sellers in foreign
countries.
1t is true that liberal government pre-
walls ii monarchic England but it is
likewise true that the chief tendency
towards liberalism there is largely in
Iuenced by this country and only so
| long as we can preserve our individu-
aiity as buyers and by avoiding the
adaptability which as sellers we are
most likely to engender.
| And right here our old friend, the
| nlgh priest of a one-sded protection
system, steps to the front and cries:
/ An, ha! these export bounty people
are unmasked at last They are trait
ors IN the camp; they are free traders
IN reality, masquerading under the
| name OF protectionists; see how savage
ly they attack protection, and how gent
ly they handle free trade. And as for
/ their foolish and pretended defense of
protection, is it not an insult to the in
| teliigence of enlightened minds?' We
conciuslvely prove that free trade would
brlng US commercial and industrial de-
cay. While these export bountieS assert
along With the free traders that it
would bring us the industrial and COM
| merclal supremacy Of the world! Is
not this sufficient to show just what
| these people are? Who, indeed, takes
notice of the feeble and immaterial OBJ
lection which they offer to free trade
under the head of national deteriora-
ton 'aS soon as we become nation OF
sellers" instead OF as now, buyers"
Certainly no sensible man would.
I'VE would, of course, prefer to abso-
lutely ignore these people and their Wild
| theory altogether" continues the high
protectionist, but we cannot well af-
ford to overlook the great mischief their
presentation is effectng, not alone
among the farmers of the South and
West, but among those of the East as
well, and we observe of late that even
the powerful labor unions of Chicago,
New York and Philadelphia have been
foolish enough to fall into this cunning
ly devised free trade trap. How can
any honest man call us false priests be-
cause we favor protection as it is-and
not cast sur on the memory of Wash
ington, Hamilton and Clay? Were not
these also protectionists? ?"
To which we may reply that it is true
they We're protectionists, but it is also
true that they were something else be-
sides this, which the high priests are
not. They were also patriots and
statesmen, but our high priest is at best
a sophist
The illustrious founders of the Re-
public favored protection of manufac-
lures at the expense of agriculture as a
temporary measure, which was to cease
as soon as the then infant industries
would come to maturity. They favored
this at a time when agriculture was
rich in an almost unbounded wealth OF
cheap and fertile lands, and when the
then conditions in production of agri-
cultural staples gave us world mo-
nopoly of prices for them.
But what is the situation to-day? Is
the manufacturing indsutry still an in
fant? Is it not a mighty giant in dl-
4
Now, what Of agriculture? Has it still
It's former advantages in its cheap ana
fertile lands, and does it still possess
the price monopoly at home and ABROAD
which it once possessed? on the con-
trary, it is now stricken with slngu-
lar. significant and unexpected mlstor-
tune-a misfortune which promises TO
be permanent and to increase in lnten-
sity as time goes on. and is caused by
the recent development of agriculture
in the cheapest land and labor coun-
tries of the world.
The same staples are being produced
there which we produce and sold in the
open markets of the world in direct
competition with ours, which deter
mines not alone our export, but our
price for home use as we'll
We are told that Samson's strength
was in the hair of his head. and when
he was shorn of it, he became feeple.
The strength of this nation was IN It's
agriculture, and when its former world
monopoly of prices for the same was
taken from it by the new world com
petition. its strength has departed and
the nation has become enfeebled there
by.
Formerly we had the monopoly OF
free or cheap lands, but now TINS ad-
vantage belongs to South America
North Africa, Australia, Eastern Eu-
rope and Western Asia.
But" say some "have we not supe-
r.ior advantages in navigation, lnternai
communication and in methods OF ex-
changer" No, we have not. On the
contrary, our merchant marine is al