The Greenville times., 1909-09-25
ENGLAND HAS FREE TRADE
Because It Is Best For Her Work
ingmen

By Tavenner.
LONDON, Sept 23.-Not only are
British trades unions standing out
almost solidly against the suggestion
that free trade be laid aside for pro
lection, but the leading bankers. mer-
chants and business men OF London
are equally antagonistic to a change.
At a meeting held recently in
Queen Victoria street. and attended
by the best known British fnanciers
and the most prominent merchants Of
London, there was formed d City
Free Trade association. The body
viii remain independent OF political
parties, concentrating all its strength
and energy to perpetuating Eng
lands free trade policy.
The best indication OF the British
workingman's views on the tariff
question IS that there is no labor
member in the House of Commons
who is not in favor OF free trade. and
no single trades union has declared
for protection. AT the trades union
congresses held during the last few
years resolutions in favor Of free
trade have been carried by enormous
majorities.
The position OF the bankers as to
tariff reform in England is set forth
in an interesting manner in the mani
fcsto issued at the meeting in Queen
Victoria street, which III part, reads
as follows:
I'VE feel strongly that no case has
been made out for the reversal Of the
policy of free trade. 1t has been al
legged by those who wish to return
TO protection that our foreign trade
Is declining, that we are becoming
impoverished as a nation, and that
our industries are being ruined by
the competition OF our rivals. We
reply that, since the adoption of free
trade, our foreign commerce has pro-
gressed as it never did before; that
our exports-we take a single exam
Dle-which amounted in 1850 to 5000
100000. amounted last year to 81
985, 100000 far exceeding those oi
the great protected states; that. 50
Jar as our being excluded from pro-
tected markets, even high tariffs can
not and do not keep out British
goods, while in neutral markets, free
trade gives us advantages such as no
protected country can secure; that,
instead OF becoming impoverished.
we have steadily and rapidly in
creased in prosperity and wealth; and
that the development OF our indus
tries as whole has made immense
progress since we cast aside the
5hackles OF protection Tin 1890.
1t j. doubtless true that other ma
tons have prospered also. and it Is
10 our interest that they should do
80. 1t is equally true that this pros
perty has in some cases come 20
pass under protective system. But
when we consider that of all nations
now adopting such a system there
are but two or three whose prosperity
exceeds our own. it becomes obvious
that protection cannot be the dom
mating factor in this result.
Apart from the objections of prin-
ciple to which protection is open,
there are also, in our judgment, seri-
GUS practical objections to it. The
proposed taxation of imported food
and manufactured articles would not
only raise the price of necessarie+.
he comforts and convenience OF life.
| but il would impose on the consume
/ 1 burden far beyond the revenue
raised for, il duty IS imposed on
articles partly imported and partly
produced at home. part only OF the
| tax paid by the consumer finds its
way into the Golfers of the state; the
| rest goes to swell the profits OF the
| producer. 1t would diminish the
purchasing power of the home mar
| let. upon which national industry
and employment mainly depend.
| And in so far as it checked our inn
ports. it would automatically restrict
our exports and diminish the volume
/ IF our foreign trade.