The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-08-24
BRYCE ON PROTECTION.
INTERESTING DEBATE IN TIE BRIT.
ISL ASSOOIITION.


----
Prof. Bryce Holds THAT the Results OF Prot,o.
tion should Deter All Countries That A..
Trying 20 Formulate n Policy or Tbo,.
Own from Adopting N-Bcnenta nnd E,i.L
TORONTO. Ont, Aug. 23.-Thcre was an AMI.
mated discussion in the section OF Economical
Statistics of the British Association to-day nm
protection. 1t was brought about by a pnper
read by Edwin Cannan. NJ. A, Oxford, on ma.
tional Policy and International Trade
The author began by pointing out tho peculiar
appropriateness OF time, place, and audience for
considering the subject chosen. The most widely
followed and most generally approved policy
was still undoubtedly, as it had been for two or
three centuries, tho encouragement Of cNpor,a.
ton and the discouragoment OF importation. This
policy was no longer founded on the idea that 10
was necessary in order TO secure q large stock
Of precious metals. That notion was completely
obsolete. What n nation should do war
to aim az improving the finest industrial
qualities in the population. There were many
ways of achieving this aim but ono OF the most
important was to allow FREQ importation OF tho
most ingenious and most chcaply produced
products of other countries.
Discussion being invited, several members,
among whom were American delegates. argued
that protection was a necessity In a young
country and that manufactures had prospcrcd
under it.
Prof. James Bryce, NJ. p, England. said he
felt that the subject was one of great
Importance, and he hoped that there
would be a thorough expression OF opin.
ion on 1t. He could not concur in
the assumption that the prosperity which
had been enjoyed by manufacturers had beendue
TO protection, but was inclined rather to attribute
no little of that development to the application
Of physical science to tho processes of manu-.
furtnrn Nathan u-aro Tho hs.yh ra rocaIral
by workmen entirely the result of protection.
The miners in England received high wages and
in the Witwatersrand they received probably
the highest wages given in any country. The
%taeture. recurring increased skill. had caused
an increase in tho scale of wages.
Germany. he believed that the very remRrkable
development OF manufacturing industries in
t teaf county Hs Is di not n soti''y th f5fFioq 9hse s tP pro:
ton was even the principal cause. There
were other economic causes, such as tho
meSt Of physical i"P Science emu lie fbr eliey Ieyf tRat
Russia has to a certain extent benefited
there. were special reasons in tho case OF
Russia which were not found in Germany. such
territory and cheap labor. Nor was protection
founded on the wish for diversifcation OF indus
Of sf'es the lh zoilv was 'h id".' which bE the evidRe ePHilar, sc,
no value whatever on local Investigation OF in
a moa5 ssd fs ssI,I iG t eR COPIES sSS or, 4hniS Of w eno It
founded on the idea Of maintaining natural
security of the best in various countries.
Its true source WAS to be found in the fact
that exports. are supposed to give employ.
m 5Rs, s snsouI lmgG0r,S e to take ant il 9Iw " So (
mFnt, The true national policy was 10
taEc as much advantage of the division OF labor
rs possible. Tho individual who got most adj.
vantage from i was the one who Is able to DO
can easily see he continued. "thas
wherever w you .oI have PROTECTED industries:
are created under protection YOU have vested
interests created; and. assuming the Govern
imProPsrly spent, You s.ill have 81 great I'll interests
and influences which it becomes very difficult
where you have induced the expenditure of
large sums OF money, and towns have been built
up BY thSss protected industries, you have
those who arc directly concerned will
fight for TO the death. but. they will
population. because they will say you have
built these up in the faith that you are going 10
tinguish them by throwing them into competi.
ton with countries where manufactures can DO
produced at a cheaper rate.
That. after all. seems to me to be the strong
est argument offered against the abolition Of
protection. This experience seems TO me TO
be the strongest argument In discouraging
any country which is formulating its iscd
tion. We are constantly being requested in
England. not, indeed. by manufacturers. hut by
reply is this. that il we introduce it for one thing
VIC must introduce it for others. and II we in
trodure it for other things il will gain such
mastery over US that we cannot get rid OF it.
Il snow that Is the view which has been
:akcn by those who are the best economists
in Europe, many of whom have been
carefully watching The progress OF pro-
lection in the United States. The re-
snl'S OF protection are shown to us
in the great growth or protected Industries and
the enormous institutions and trusts in the
United StlteS. which. II not altogether due to pro-
lection. at any rate derive a great deal Of their
power from protection. I think. therefore, that
Notwithstanding anything that can be said con-
corning the benefits of protection 10 Russia, the
experience OF protection in other countries Is
such that il should deter any country that il
now striving to formulate n policy OF its own,
such as Canada, from embarking in il"