The record-union., 1897-11-07


of embroidery, and explodes the whole
scheme by showing it to be sophistry
pure and simple. Thereat and un-
daunted the high priest RECEIVERS his
equilibrium and again takes the floor,
this time shouting, Just so. the pro-
tective. tariff does raise prices, we al
ways said so. and can prove it," And
the poor. helpless, truth-loving figures
are again made to dance to the tune Of
our old friend, the enemy.
Is the metaphor then, overdrawn
when it was claimed that the advocates
of the bounty proposition in starting cut
in its discussion are puzzled as to the
choice of roads? Having no other
choice, however, l shall proceed in the
order outlined and if 1 find myself
again under the car of Juggernaut,
will try my best to escape from the
threatened annihilation of the dreaded
front and rear.
The first postulate was, that protec-
ton when equitable and just IS con-
ducive to national welfare. / propose
to leave this argument for the con-
Guiding portion of my paper.
The second postulate requires no
lengthy dissertation, for no intelligent
economist requires proof to show that
an English buyer will not pay us more
| for sta plies. than he can get them for in
another country. Nor does he need to
| be told that so long as these products
/ are sold and bought in wheat pits or
! cotton exchanges at international prices
| the export price and the home
| price must be the same. In other
words, that the producers of these sta
/ pies are obliged to sell all their products
| at free trade prices and are compelled
to pay protective prices for everything
! they buy. This being self-evident, we
find that the present ssytem Of pro-
| lection limited to tariff on imports is
unjust and ineQuitable.
The third and fourth postulate is to
| show that an export bounty on the sta
! plies of agriculture would equalize the
present unequal and unjust protective
system. Now an export bounty on ag-
ricultural staples would as effectually
raise the home prices of the entire pro-
duction of these staples as a protective
tariff is effectual in artificially enhanc-
ing the home price Of imported and OF
home manufactures. To artif1cially en-
! hance the value Of manufactures with
! out doing the same thing for agricul-
| tural staples is inequity and injustice;
to put both industries ON an equality so
far as artificial enhancements are con-
cerned, would, therefore, be the es-
tablshment of justice and equity in the
protective system.
The fifth postuate is to show that an
export bounty would be constitutional
and practicable. That it is const1tu-
tional is evident, not alone because 1t
is not unconstitutional, but because an
export bounty on fish was in operation
in the United States,@ and this Act re-
ceived the affirmative vote of so able an
authority as Calhoun. 1t is, besides.
really in operation to-day on manufac-
lures under the term draw back on
| exports
That 1t is practical is evident from it's
having been in operation in England
under protection for one hundred years,
and is in operation now in the princl-
pal countries Of Europe on sugar and
on flour.
And it is now in order for me to
prove why an export bounty by render
ing the protective system equitable
would be preferable to free trade, not
alone to this nation, but to the other
countries. Before doing this. it may be
proper for me to briefly recapitulate the
general claims for free trade by free
/ traders. They claim, first, that free
trade would be just and equitable as
between citizens of this country, and
between this and other countries, and
this I do not deny.
They claim, secondly, that restriction
of foreign trade, or restriction of free
commercial intercourse with the world,
is an injury which tends to retard our
commercial and industrial supremacy.
That it tends to repress the tendency of
the rapid development of our natural
resources. and deprives US of the trade
which we ought to have on the Ameri-
can continent and Asia, especially, and
with the other parts of the world in
cidentally. not alone for our own man
ufactures. but for the manufactures of
other countries as we'll.
We may grant all this, and yet re-
fuse to affirm that this would be an
injury. On the contrary 1 propose to
show further on that restriction of for
eipn commercial intercourse when de-
vised and operated on an equitable ba-
sis between the citizens of this country
would prove to be permanent benefit
in another. and more important direc-
ton than commercial or industrial
greatness. They furthermore claim that
restriction is barbarous and unethical
We NAV grant this, provided they con-
fine their definition to the present one
sided and unjust system of protection
when limited to a tariff on imports.
} We deny it when applied to a just and
equitable system of protection.
h. T. ha in1nnYfnnt dissent
from free trade doctrine. it is deemed
necessary to substantiate it with valid
reasons:
First-Then. government possessing
sovereign power may properly enact
laws for it's own preservation and hap
piness.
Second-Whenever in the opinion OF
that government the political and so
cial status of foreign nations are in
ferior to its own. it has the right to
: protect itself against the deterioratins
| influences which the foreign countries
may exert upon it.
Third-If this deteriorating influence
can be warded off by restriction of for
eign trade, it is by no means an act
of barbarity, nor is it at all unethical
to do SO.
Now. can free traders truthfully as
. sert that the political and social state
J of foreign countries are on a par with
J ours? Have they the same ideals and
are they governed by the same ten
dency?
Certainly not, for our form of gov
! ernment is republican. theirs by what
ever name they may be called are
largely despotic and monarchic.