The morning journal-courier., 1908-12-18
Engenc N. Toss, Sncech.

t1hE'it ~ tbNS Nl'tNl'
 Eugene N Floss of Boston was thu called upon to speak on the other side He said in part.
 1t is simply a question of degree in which Mir McIeary and differ Rev enue, and not protection. Is the first thought. We arc spending a billion dollars each congress. All our man ufacturea nave outgrown the need of protection In New England we ought to have frco raw materials.
 "l Woull like Co see absolute free trade between this country and Cau- ada, just as much as between New England and tho south or west. In New England we could use Nova Sco- tia when necessary Because of the great consumption of lumber in this country appropriations for renewing the forests have been asked Why cannot We get lumber and wood pull from Canada? We should avail our. selves Of the wheat fields of Canada | by reclprocty Canada has always been ready for reciprocity our dutie. average more than double theirs Th, New England industries must hay, wider foreign markets, and this ear only be gained by reciprocity. w cannot expect to sell unless we pur chase.
 T believe that the republican parn was wise twelve years ago when 1t de clarod that reciprocity was the twii of protection t must br a policy O give and take Sugar ls au unnatnra industry for thc United States So wn, protect sugar, confined to Colorad and Utah, where Japanese arc cm ployod Than to have encourages this by a aS per cent. tariff lt woull have been better to make a recIprocI ty treaty with Germany to get th product there, Why not tax coffe Instead of sugar? We do not cxpor muca 10 coffee countries,
 'I think tho protective policy only admissible when a country young and bringing up industries nat ural to the country
 After the applause following the cx presson of Mir. Toss sentiments ha finished roastmaster Russell Intro duccd as the final speaker of the even ing Prof Irving Fisher of Vale,
 What Prof Fisher Said.
 Prof Fisher said:
 II seems to mo out of place here { enter into any theoretical discussio as Co the economic effect of the tarlf Tho matter fig not as simple as it seem ed 10 economists many years ago Tn public is not interested in thcoreticg discussions, nor is tho main argumen for reducing tariff duties to-day purel an economic argument Suffice 1t [ say that the economic effect of reduc ing the tariff is practically ldcntlca with the economic effect of q new la bor saying machine Free trade merely one form of labor saving de vice, and tho same arguments appl for and against t as apply for an against any other labor saving device Labor saving devices arc ant at frs to throw labor and capital out of em ployment in certain directions an any radical reduction in the tariff vi have tho samo effect on the othe hand labor saving devices win usual more than make up to labor, and in l, general WaN to capital. for losses du to such dlslocaton by providing cheaper and more abundant product and a reduction in the tariff win hay substantially the same effects.
 There Is this Important dlrrerenc howcvor-that the protective tariff an artificial arrangement and that moral responsibility attaches 10 thos who legislatc it up or down. Tn brings us to the practical quostioi and since it ie the republican part which must bear the responsibility [, deciding this practical question, seems to be more fruitful to cousidC , the question from the standpoint of r, ; publican responsibility than from an