New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-07-05
BRITISH TOTES FOR PROTECTION.

In one respect at least the Anglo-Saxon family
Is drawing closer together and that on Ameri-
can lines. There was time when a British
Free Trader and an American Protectionist
could he readily distinguished But THE Lon
don Economist" finds that the Free Trade doc
trine has been exactly theOpposte" of that de-
clared by Lord George Hamilton and Mr. Cham
berlain in discussing the new sugar duty for
India The sugar growers in India wanted q
countervaling duty against bounty-fed sugar,
such as the Dingley act contains. The British
Government considered the question with Lord
Curzon before he went out to India as Viceroy.
and Lord George Hamilton. Secretary of State
for India. forwarded instructions in favor of the
countervailing duty. and afterward wired sew
eral times to learn how soon the Viceroy pro
posed to have such an act passed. After some
time he answered: Propose to leglsate at once
OH American model" few days later answer
ing again, he replied "Bill for imposing duty
ION lines of American law will be brought for
ward March TO-" and so 1t came to pass.
This led TO a debate and bolt in the House
Of Commons quite recently when the act of Gov
eminent was sustained by majority of III,
which would probably have been much larger.
according to the correspondent of The Phadel-
party lines 1t was enough TO shock THE Lon
ion Economist" which labors in an editorial on
June II to convict Mr. Chamberlain and Lord
George Hamilton of Inconsistency with each
other and inconsistency in claiming to be still
Free Traders Mr.. Chamberlain in supporting
The measure had said that "the doctrine Of Free
Trade has become dogma and religion OF
Fetch" had spoken of 1.-THE fanatcism OF GER
Il f,ta 7 ord
.rer," the president of the Golden Club. and had
added, 81 was led 10 believe in his predictions,
every one Of which has been falsihed by the
event" No wonder the Cobdenltes were
,hocked. Mr. Chamberlain argued that the duty
night properly be imposed TO equallze condi-
ions. and showed that the same principle had
ed Great Britain 10 impose countervailing
iuty on rum to prevent the West India product
,aving an advantage in the English market
But these are protective doctrines Lord
George Hamilton claimed that II was Free Trade
by encouraging production and increasing com
petition 10 benefit the consumer, who gets the,
advantage of low prices in consequence OF In
Creased production" Exactly that argument,
almost in the same words. may be constantly
,ound in any protective journal here. and "The
london Economist seems 10 have some reason
or claiming That free irdue WIS tHe oppoSlV
# this" tariff for India avowedly framed
.on lines Of American law" is naturally mon
,trosjty TO Lord Farrer and his Cobdentes, but
he main trouble is that the British House OF
Commons voted by al majority to sustain IT,
rbe Dingey act is probably the first American
protective tariff the principles OF which have
,een adopted by the British Government and APP
,roved by the British House OF Commons but
mere is nothing astonishing in the fact that
incIshmen are growing tired OF dogma which
mis- their Industries at a disadvantage In COM
,eting not only with Germany and other Euro
,ean countries, but with the United States.
BY encouraging production and increasing
.ompetltion," in the words of Lord George liam
Hon. this country has so far benefited the con
mmer that he can not only get cheaper iron and
deel here than in England, but could recently
,bjp quantities 10 England for the benefit OF
consumers there This has been the Natlonai
,olicy for many years, never wholly Interrupted
wen under Mr. Cleveands Administration, as
mo Wilson bill In its final form left the iron IN
lustry comparatively well defended The re-
nit has been that British consumers nave Deeh
lnioying the benefits OF cheaper products from
his country secured by the constant encourage
nent Of production and competition under pro-