The Globe-republican., 1901-05-09
NATURAL PRODUCTS.
SHALL WE LIMIT OURSELVES
TO THESE ONLY
If So. which Ones Shall We Abandon.
How Shall We Fare If We Follow
the Free Traders Prescription for the
Increase of Our Foreign Trade.


One of the first canons of free trade
is that each country should produce
only that commodity in which it excels
in quality and cheapness, buying from
abroad everything that can be made
cheaper there In other words. we
should not strive to establish and
maintain an industry that is not
natural one, but devote our whole
energy to one with the product OF
which we can beat all other nations
On the other hand, prOtectionisIs
maintain that we should diversity
industries to the largest degree posi-
BILE making and producing everything
that the soil and climate will allow and
that genius and diligence encourage
The best theoretical exposition of this
question is given by Sir Edward Sulli-
van in his Protection to Native IN
dustry,'' but the best exposition of this,
as of any other question, is the practi-
cal one of experience.
There is no country on earth where
industry is so diversified in the
United States. In fact, one of the
principal objects of our first and every
succeeding protective tariff was to ere
ate and maintain new industries. and
today we can make everything that can
be made anywhere and we can raise
everything needed by man, except tea
and coffee and few minor products
This is what has given US SO much
employment, such high wages and such
an unparalleled home market
In spite of all this, however, the free
traders of today are again urging that
we open our ports to the cheaper
products of other countries and devote
ourselves to gaining other markets, by
centering our energies on few nat
ura1'' productions In other words, we
are urged to abandon a sure market
of many times the value of any that
we could have if we were to gain all
there is to be gained
But for the sake of argument, let
suppose the free trader to be right,
for the further one examines free
trade theory the more absurd it APP
pears. Let US cease producing some
things and buy them abroad, paying
for them with increased productions of
other things. The questions now con-
front Where shall we begin? What
shall wmsive up? Surely not any of
the staple agricultural products If our
farmers should abandon their land and
go to the factory and make plows, for
instance, who would the plows?
We raise and shall sell more grain and
provisions than any other people, so
perhaps it would be better to close the
factory and for all to go the farm.
But there is a surplus of farm products
now, and where could we sell double
or treble the present production? This
again is absurd. Shall our miners leave
the mines and make picks and shove1s,
| with which the market is already full
ly supplied? Could million iron and
| steel workers turn to making boots
and shoes? No; it is all ridiculous,
turn which way We will
| Fully 95 per cent of our products
are sold at home Are we to believe
that half of this or any part of it can
be carried thousands of miles and sold
at a greater net profit than when sold
| within a few miles distant from the
| place OF production? The whole free
| trade contention is one natural, physi-
| cal, economical impossibility.
The CObdenite obscures his theory
| somewhat by saying that we should
| admit the raw material free and in
| crease our production and sales of the
| finished product The raw material
| fal1acy has been laid bare so often that
| it is useless to argue it at the begin
ming of the twentieth century But
| suppose we were to import the partly
| finished material, that, perfected and
combined, makes the last finish ed
| product what would be the result? 1t
| will be found that the value of our
manufactures in 1900 approximates
81 5, 900 900. 900. On the basis of the cen
sus of 1890 somewhat over $4,000, OOO,-
| 600 worth of this is what the2free
| trader calls raw material At least
| three persons are engaged in making
| engaged in producing the last finished
| product Shall we then throw three
men out of employment to benefit
| one2
The contention that eff we do not
| buy cannot SELF is refuted by the
| fact that we are, and have been for
| years, selling much more than we
| buy
The free trader cannot in the light
| of experience, with actual facts and
figures confronting him, point to a
single industry that we can safely
| abandon Every added industry means
increased employment and an in
creased home market and larger
profits
No: instead of abandoning a single
| industry, we should constantly seek to
enlarge and diversity, in order to en-
| ploy every possible acre of land and
every possible human arm and mind
In the words of Henry C. Carey With
every increase in the power of produc-
| ton, consumption grows. and the Ia
/