The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-10-03
TARIFF TIDE TURNING.
Necessity of a Foreign Market Forcing
 a Change of View.

I Necessity of a Foreign Market Forcing a Change of View.
 Agitation upon the subject of tarit revision and reciprocity treaties now adays is induced by anxiety about for eign markets for our surplus products. | This is in striking contrast with the time when the chief sOlicitude was over the home market, and it implies a changing sentiment which must sooner : or later lead to a new commercial pol 1 icy. The requirements for reserVing and developing the home market for domestic production are different from those necessary for securing and ex- tending the foreign market, The old | policy of protection was supported by plausible arguments, Its aYOWed pur- pose was to build up and diversity manufacturing industries and provide ! a market among our own people for
 products of the soil. By restriction
 of the admission of foreign manufac- tured goods by means of high duties, foreign capital and labor were in- 1 duced to come here to produce them instead of producing them at home
 and sending them here in exchange for raw materials and foodstuffs. This i hastened foreign investment in our in- ! dustries and stimulated immigration, and for time it contributed to diver sity of employment for both capital and labor and increase of population, restricting the export of natural prod ucts and enlarging the market for them at home. The plea was made that this not only stimulated the develop ment of our resources and our growth | in industry and population as nation,
 but made us more independent of other nations and more sufficient unto our selves.
 This was the theory of our protec- stve policy in the industrial and com mercial infancy of the country, and the arguments in support of it had certain i force which vanished long ago. Much fallacy has taken its place. While 1 it may be true that development and growth were hastened by protecting the domestic market against foreign invasion, that policy was not the soure or the primary cause. of the develop ment and growth. That lay in the nat
 
 country and foreign capital and labor would have come in to avail of these in profitable employment in any case. Without protection" early progress might have been slower, but it would have been more healthy, and later pro- gress would have been more rapid as 1 we'll as healthier, and we should have ; escaped t ehdemoralizing and corrupt ing abuses of the tariff policy. There { is no fallacy more gross and palpable i than that which attributes high wages for labor and high profit for capital in this country to the restriction of inl- ports. They are necessarily due to natural resources and advantages which enable us to produce larger value than others at a smaller expen- diture of labor and of the capital which is the other chief factor in produc- tion. The result may be increased by higher intelligence and activity and greater freedom in the application of energy, which add to efficiency in pro- duction, but we are apt to overestimate our superiority in Fthose qualities. Op- portunity, no doubt, tends to stimulate them, but so far asathey are really more highly developed than elsewhere there is the less need of protection against the .cometition of others. With