A Heavy Indictment

The high tariff agitation in France is calling forth such an opposition to protectiou as wonld not have been possible if the goverument had not been led away by our McKinleyism in the direction of higher taxation. An evidence of the oppositiou called forth by the Frenen McKinleyism may be seen in a new magazine, Le Monde Economique, which has been recently established in Paris. This journal is resolutely opposed to the whole system of protection. In a recent number of it M. Paul Beauregard draws such a trae and heavy indictment against protection that it can be read with proñt in our own land. The writer says: We hold it as self evident that every protective measure is unjust, because such a system has for its object the enrichment of a small number of individuals at the expense of the others. When a duty is imposed upon wheat and meat the farmers may dispense with the improvement of their processes of culture, but consumere are obliged to pay more dearly for their food. This, therefore, is to take out of the pockets of all the profit which is given to the few. There is no process of reasoning which can show that this is not uniust. Now, if this is the case with every restrictive tariff measure, what is to be thought when these protectionist claims reach the degree of extravagance whieh we see today? So long as the protected classes were not yet masters of the situation they simply pleaded that the state should let them live. They could not continue, they said, with their own resources - they must be helped. Would it not be an advantage to France to have within her borders a complete cycle of production, and not be tributary to any nation for its supplies? If the sacrifice was a borden, at least patriotism imposed it! What do we see today? The same party, believing itself secure of a majority, has lost all moderation. Petition gives place to threats, which are speedily carried into execution. Thei-e is no longer a question of living at the expense of others, but of suppressing them and getting rid entirely of their coinpetition. Deplorable enough in itself, the protectionist reaction serves still f urther as the occasion, as the pretext, for struggles in which the strongest destroy the weakest. Such are the civil wars, which promote private vengeance. What, we ask, must be the effect of such a spectacle upon public mórality? Is it right that the state should become the distributer of fortunes to some at the expense of others? Do the protectionists reflect that by the side of the manufacturera and capitalista enriched or ruined there will be thousands of workmen, hereplunged in misery, there the witnesses of or the sharers in a den and unjust prosperity? From such a spectacle they will conclude that the state can do everything, that everything thiat it decrees is legitímate, that it is easy and right for it to secure the welfare of its favoritos by drawing, whenever needed, upon the purse of others, and, arguing from their number, from their wants, from their precarious situations they will demand to be those favorites. This is the open path to socialism, state socialism first and socialism unlimited afterward. Being accustomed to a moderate protecti ve tariff, manyhavenot been able to see this truth during the past thirty years, but now it is becoming as clear as daylight. The socialists have never been deceived in the matter. They have always pointed to protection as a practical application of their own theories, but an unjust one, as it operates for the advantage of the rich.