The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-03-21

Not one Of tie compliments paid to the
Unsfed States by any foreign power IS
more sfgn4ncant than the oct Of the In
dtan government In fmposing . duty on
bcunfy-fei u1gars1 After maintaining for
nearly nifty years thai free trade was
the only true commercial policy. the Brit
ish government SHOWS by this movement
that IL has some misgivings as to the wis
dom Of adopting free trade unqualifedly.
Although the government makes the
specioGn defense that II II only to onset
an unfair advantage, there Is no conceal
ing the truth that II Is an adoption OF
the protection theory. One Of the Lon
don newspapers. which may be regarded
a. the organ Of free trade. although free
trade has not been an issue IN England
Tor many years says there 10 q strong
impression that this Indian duty 10 tn
tended as q feeief to an English duty,
and the whole free trade position 10 inn
perfled. Henry Iabouchere. the Radical
member Of parliament. also says 1t may
be the first step toward q general system
Of protection. which may decide Eng
lands supremacy for once and all. This
Is very vague. but probably means that
with the abandonment Of free trade Eng
land will lose the place she has SO long
held and which she attributed to her free
trade policy.
Neither OF these can be regarded A.
authorities because they are both pre-
disposed to condemn anything that Con.
sentative ministry would suggest, and be-
cause the question Of tarff has not been
before the English people for 30 long
that the judgment Of very few would be
worth relying upon.
The majority OF Englishmen are 80
strongly intrenched in the belief that
there il only one way to do thing. and
that Is the British way, and. having
adopted II. are so superciliousiy indiffer-
ent to any other way that they have been
oblivious OF facts which must be forcing
themselves upon the attention OF the re.
eponsible authorities.
The supremacy of Great Britain In the
commerce OF the world has already been
wrested from 1t by the United States.
While Great Britain has been pursuing a
policy Of free trade. the United States
has-with one or two disastrous intervals
steadily maintained q protective policy.
The theorists told us that the only way
In which we could hope to emulate Eng
land in results was to follow hex example
in methods. How far from being the
truth this II can be gathered from the
fact that while England has for nifty
years been run under the free trade plan,
and 10 now reluctantly admitting the pos
sibi1ity that II Is wrong. the United States
has. under a protective policy. advanced
with such prodigious strides as to cauae
wonder even to ourselves. Our exports
have Increased from s144 81. 27s in 1850 TO
81. 81 49, 80 In 1895: that Is to say. we have
increased by more than one billion dol
lars q year. Our imports have increased
from $173. o.526 to $6l6.049.654
This comparison scarcely conveys q full
realization OF the progress. In 1850. II win
be observed. that we imported more than
We exported. That was true for nearly
twenty-four years 1t was not until 1874
or q year or so after "the crime" that
We began to. increase our exports over
our imports. until last year we had a bal
ance In our favor against all countries
OF s15.o000Oo. One hundred per cent
profit!
This Is not an ordinary increase: It n
simply fabulous. There Is no other coun-
try in the world can show such profits
on its transactions.
There can be no doubt about the deduc-
tons to be gathered from these figures
because In 1855, and again In 1893, the I'm.
ports exceeded the exports, and every
body remembers the disastrous depression
OF those years.
To export more than we import is the
object Of all our legislation. It was the
protection doctrine. India imports more
than she EXPORTS and by the proposed
protective policy Great Britain admits that
perhaps, after ALL the United States may
not be wholly wrong.