The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-09-10

Messrs. ARMrTAGE SMITH, A. l.. Bow
LEY and EDWIN CANAAN, lecturers on
political economy in the University OF
London. and the Right Hon, LEONARD
H. COURTNEY. formerly Professor OF
Political Economy in University Col
lege. London. 1t may be doubted
whether a more remarkable manifesto
of expert opinion was ever penned. In
it Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN proposal Is sub
jected to an impartial but rigorous
analysis, and the conclusion reached ID
announced in dispassionate but unmis-
taxable terms,
The sicners of the declaration begin
by proving that they are patriots as well
as political economists, for they concur
in averring that sacrifice of material
wealth would not be regarded by them
as fatal objection to a fiscal scheme
which, in their opinion, would be other
wise adapted TO the cultivation OF closer
relations between the various parts OF
the British Empire. They 60 on to say
however. that the means TO that END
suggested by Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN do not
to them appear advisable; first, because
there would probably be incurred an
immense and permanent sacrifice, not
only of material wealth, but also Of
higher interests; and, secondly. because
the means suggested would be likely to
defeat rather than attain the end in view.
The signatories are convinced that any
system Of preferential tariffs would
most probably lead to the reintroduc-
ton Of protection into the fiscal system
of the United Kingdom, which, they
hold, would be detrimental to the ma
terial prosperity OF the country; that
the evils resulting therefrom would be
lasting, since protection, when it has
once taken root, is likely to extend be-
yond the limits at first assigned to it,
and is very difficult to extirpate; and,
finally, that other and worse evils are
to BIO apprehended, to wit, the loss of
purity in politics, the unfair advantage
given to those who WELD the powers of
jobbery and corruption an unjust dis
tribution of wealth and the growth of
sinister interests.
The signers of the declaration proceed
to examine certain political economical
assertions circulated by Mr.. CHAMBER
LAIN and his coadjutors in the leaflets
with which they are beginning to flood
the British constituencies. 1t is not true,
say these authoritative expounders of
political economy, that an increase of
imports does, as Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN
alleges, involve the diminished employ
ment Of workmen in the importing
country The Secretary for the Colonies
is informed that his statement is univer-
sally rejected by those who have thought
about the subject, and is completely
refuted by experience.
In the second place, it is pronounced
exceedingly improbable that tax on
food imported into the United Kingdom
would result in an equivalent rise in
wages. On the contrary, the result
which may he anticipated as direct
consequence of such tax would be the
lowering of the real remuneration Of
labor.
In the third place. attention is directed
to the incorrectness of Mr.. CHAMBER
LAIN's suggestion that the British public,
though directly damnified by an impost,
may yet obtain full equivalent from its
yield. The suggestion is ill-founded,
because it leaves out of ccount the inter-
ference with the free circulation of goods,
the detriment incident to diverting in
dustry from the course which otherwise
it would have taken, and, above all, the
circumstance that in the case of tax
on foreign wheat-Engish and colonial
wheat being free from taxation the
British consumer would have to pay the
whole, or nearly the whole, tax on all the
wheat consumed, while the Government
would get the tax only on foreign wheat.
To the influential political economists
who have issued this declaration at a
critical conjuncture it seems impossible
to devise any tariff regulation which shall
at once expand the wheat-growing areas
in the colonies, encourage agriculture in
the United Kingdom, and at the same
time not injure the British consumer. 1t
is, of course, by the verdict of the British
stand or fall