Press enter after choosing selection

Free Trade Vs. Protection

Free Trade Vs. Protection image
Parent Issue
Day
12
Month
April
Year
1872
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

Fiomtlie S, Y. TorM. At tho Liberal Club lat evening Prof. Arthur Latham Perry, professor ot' politieal economy at Williams College, Wilíiamstown Mass., read a paper on " Quid Pro Quo," in the courso of which ho spoko of tho tariff as follows : In oouclusion, and very briefly, I want to show yon that what is called "Protoctkm in tariff is a delusion and a lie ; that its principie, if onco admitted into the science, would overthrow the wholo structure of exchange to its foundation-stone. The principie of "Protoction" is that few people may diotate to all the rest what they shall buy and where. We moot tho principie as we do the burglar at the threshold ; wo deny admittancc to it as to him, and for tho same reason ; not more surely will he, if he gain ontranoe, rob us of what is most precious tlian will this principie, if admitted, destroya most sacred right of the people. My quid and your quid and our neighbor's quid - sonse and scienco say it, and sen se and science are the voice of God - may find each its chosen quo without lot or hiudrance. But Protection says. No L that qiuid sball tako my quo, ■which I adinit is an inferior ono, or go without And then, like those of old, frame its mischief into a law. If my neighbor the miller can get a law passed that I and all my neighbors shall buy all owr flour and meal and buckwheat and hominy at nis mili, although wo can, and becaviso wo can got better articlcs at a oheapor rate at another mili the other sido of town, it may be well for him ; but as men of sonse tind spirit, as knowing our rights, and, knowing, dare torotain thom, wo do not proposo to stand it. That law is unjust. It robs us of our property ; it makos our qnid retch less, whon God. and nature would give it more. That law shall go under. This simple case illustrates the whole thing perfectly. That iniller is a prótectionist, my neighbor and I aro freo-traders. This so-called Protection, however, like pverything thut is crafty and devilish aud dangerous in this world.knows howto put on a plausible exterior. It disguises itself as much as it can. It steals a naine that is no more descriptivo of its naturo than the name "honey-dew" properly describes that brand of tobáceo. A tariff is a combination.of taxes, the name deri ved f rom Tarifa, an old town on the Straits of Gibraltar, where tlie Moors had a castle under whose guns ships wero stopped and compelled to pay tribute according to the estimated value of their cargo. As tariff-taxes on iraported goods, proporly levied, aro a perfeetly imexceptional mode of raising a part of the revenue that government requires, this false Protection soes a chance to hide itself and yet work out its ends. It says, just lay these duties i)ow on foreign goods which corres pond to tho goods which I inake at home, which will raise the price of those goods to the extent of tho tax or less Aha ! let us look at it ! If the tax on tho foreign goods be so high as thereafter to exelude them (and nothing pienses the protectionist so much as that) govornment gets no penny of revenuo fruin a tax which yet makes the people pay a groat deal in the higher price of the orresponding douaestic goods. Tariff taxes, like all othor taxes, are ostensibly laid forrevenue; if the goods on which they aro laid are theruby excluded government gets nothing, the people pay much in the higher price of the dunnestie goods which havenow no competition, and Protection is in its glory. Everybody must bring his grist to my miller's inill ! You see that the perfection of Protoction is the death of revenue. Millious of money are paid every year by the people of the United States in consequenco of tariff taxes which realizo to the TreasuTy not one single penny ' Revenue is received only as the goods come in. Protection is perfect only as tho goods are kopt out. If the goods are kopt out, not only does government get no revenue, not only are the people obliged to pay artificial prices for the homo goods corresponding, but where is the market for the nativo products that would otherwise be exchanged against the forcign products now excluded 't "Quid pro quo" is the rule of foreign trade just as it is of doxnestic trade. Foreigners never bring anything hither, except for the sake of carrying something home. If the law tiiriKS its fist in thcir face as they are coming it no less rudely, by the same act, flings its fist in tho face of its own citiEens who ware waiting for their coming to make with them a profitablo exchange. If their quid is excluded, what becomes of our quo ? It loses its best and freely-chosen market. lts value is partially or wholly destroyed. To inake in artificial market for one class of citizens Protection necessarily destroys the natural market of another class. If the deatli of revenue follows the perfection of Protection it is just as true that the perfection of revenue is the death of Protection. If lower tariff tax but purtially excludes the foreign goods, then governmect gets somt revenue from the goods that still cauto in ; but the people pay rauch moro ia eanstquenoe of the tax than governmenii gets. They pay the tax on uil that consumed, domestic as well as foreign. The perfection of a tax is one that realias9-ta government all that the peoplo aro mado to pay in consequence of it. But the sole aim of Protoction is to raise artificiaHythe price of certain domestic goods by menas of a tax on foreign goods. Thereforo rovenuo and Protection aro incompatible wifch each other. Whero Protection begins tiiore reveuuo bogins to diir.iuish, whero Protection ends there revenue has ceased. In one word tariff taxes are most produc tive and are just right when they are laid at low nites, so as not essentially to interrupt natural tradt; - on comparatively few things only, so as to disturb trade at as few points as posfsible ; and on things wholly impoi'tod trom abroad, 60 as to raise the prioe of nothing but the things themsulves - and tho govern inent consequcntly gets nll thnt the people paj'. Suoh tuvift taxes a I have just doseribed liavo Euglaud, and üermany, aud Belgium, and partially aiso Franco. Englnni taxes in lier turiff bijt eighteen ar ticie and Gvrmany but 152, at low ït;t.'B, nnd these articles for the moet part aot proiuced at, home. Theso taxes are produetiv aud they are satisfactory. Our ow tirilf at present taxes by aotual coust 2,317 different articles, many of the) at uuheard-of rates, and by proforenc-ttiO8e iriicles the like of which are iilso prosduoed at home. It thus violates everj piaoiple of a revenue tariff and beooaL tugigantic tooi in tho lmnds of leagued monopolists for the oppressiou of the poople. The very salt we eat, the blankcts that warm us as we sleep, the carpets we oa whun we wake, the iron andtstol nsilaweroll over in our jourrv.-s, and unnunbcrcd things besidos have piiid -extortion taaoi, not to govevnrnent, but to swell tho Lncomo of millionairni. Do yon say we aro a young country and mitst; eaconrage iníam industries? I reply that the protcetiwo dutics of to-day are just Mirve timos higher ui the average than whea ve were a young country, and had infiNit industrie in Washington's day and .Jefïersoiv's. The industries that are the most higbly protectod to-day are the very oldest and the very strongest and the very richest industries in the United States. Do you sny that we do indeod pay out a great deal for Prateetion, yet somehow or other by a hocits-pocus which neither you nor anybody ever could axplaio,. we after all g:t it back ? We get it back (and I am telling now un old story) just as my podfather, Arthur Lfttham, np in New Hampshire, got back hi beans. Mr. Latham, like all ountry morfhants in thoso days, sold. aomitry produce, dry goods, groceries,. and rum. Old Únele Jake, a vagabond oí tho neighborhood, whosometimes was hungry, or whether hungry or not was always thirsty, .on one occasion stole some loans from Mr. Lathani's store to satisfy liis hungur with, and havii g gome loft it ocourred to hím that he mitht use them ao br to Katinfy his thirst. 1 e took them b:icli to the store and 6old tLem for fuui. The thing leaked out, and the next time ho came Mr. Latham accosted Uncle Jako Uoxra : " Thoy say, Uncle J.ikc, tlmt you stolo thoso bciins aere that you sold us the Othoi day for rum." 'Oh, niver mind it, Mr. Latham, ncver mind it, you've got your beans agin ! " Just so, and not othcrwisc, do we get back the gigantic thefts of protection ! MR. OREELEY'S REPLT. In roply Mr. Horaoe Greeloy said : There is but littlo time to answor ; let me try to answcr squarely. My fríen J has stated that a few people are robbins forty niillions of poople, taking tbcir eamings, oharging them doublo for what they soll and buying what thoy buy for halt'. Let me ask by whoso ordors, at whose demanda havo they obtained this right ? Tho very first tariff over passed by our Congress was a tariff in 1781, whieh began : " Whereas it is nocessary for the payinont of the dobt and for the protoction of domeatic manufactures. " This was tho first tariff passed by universal accord, and this was the declarcd purposo of it. Do robbers coinmonce with a declaratiou of their determination to rob F Yet hero we see Congress octing on a me9sage from George Washington and acting in this way. They declared those two purposes- Protection and revunuo - togethcr, and tUej went to tho poople on that. Did our people oppose tlu'in ? Why, wo had grand celebrations then. I, of course, was not bom then, but I have talked with men who have tokl we that tho mechamos here wore the pooplo who cried out " Protect our industry." Mechanica, mind you, here at the sea-board whore wo had freo trado. Well, they nover dared to come boforo the country and divido the country on the ground prcsonted by him. We alvvays doclnrod ourselves. I was child - a reading child - and I know that tho country was a unit right through on this quostion up to 1828, whcn we passed tho highest tariff ever passod in thi3 country - iron $12.50 per ton and other things in proportion - aad no party dared to tako ground against it. We gentlemen who have stooil for protection for tho last fifty years are no less intelligent than the rest of the pooplo, no lesa au edneated people, no less a reading peoplo, and we have written our banner on the sky. We have nover como with the protence that we would not pass sueh a luw, and when wo have been beateti we have beun beatón by fraud. Ncver havo wo tricd to hide this question or biilittle it ; nevor trying to ask people to forgot the tariff and divide o:ï something else; never once, always making this as broad as possible ; always adopting it on every stump, in every school-housc. Our friend likens this to a man who is a miller, who gets a law passed that everybody shall como to his ruill. Now, the contrary is exactly the f iet - that pooplo have corn to grind, and they msist on having milis. You remember General Juokson's letter of 1824. Was that a letter of tbc manufactnrer'r1 No ; on tho eontrary, it was the lottor of the farmer, suying : "We liave not these iuterests. Wo want them. We want manufactures here to inake our produce valuablo, to take from agriculture 600,000 luen and women and employ them in manufactures." Do you sce that this is entirely conlrary to his logic 'i - and it comes not from manufactures, for they did not exist. Western New York was the best wheat-growing country in the world, but thu wheat was 25 cents per bushul. Npw thon, the people of the State of New York said : " We will dig a canal from the Hudson Rivcr to Lake Erie in order that tho wheat may come cheaper to New York - that svhoat may bo choaper there and dearer here ; in othcr words, we will take some bushels out of every ïuau's wbettt biix, in order that tho wheat which is left may be more valuable." There were a great many poople who did not bclieve in it, but it was the same question as wo aro now considering, tho very principio of political economy laid down hero in " Quid Pro Quo," right against that policy. "Why," says the whoat grower, " givo us Quid Pro Quo. 1 have got wheat, I want goods. I will sell niy wheat and get goods." " Xo, " says anothofman, " it is better for us and for the community to make arrangemeuts whereby the wheat shall be transported to the consumere, .to the manufacturers, cheaper than it otherwiso would, and we will tako soino of your wheat to pay the cost of transport." And one good Dutchman hung himself because they would take of his land to make this canal whoreby the wheat was to be carried. He siid : " I will take off my wheat as I please." But had that policy prevailed the city of New York would have been to-day nearly as largo as Boston. [Laughter.] It waatho Ërie Canal, dug at the expense of the itatu ut' Now York, that has inade this city the metropolis of Amorica - (applause) - and it was dug directly in detianco of tho policy that has been laid down hero to-night. I have stood in the State of Iowa, and I have socn grain como in to be sold at 15 cents a bushe! ; and why ? Bccausc tho markets wero at a distance. They had perfect free trade, but it was because tho consumers wore so far away. Now, if the good people of Iowa shall say : " By a joint stock arrangement we will mako the goods, tho fabrics which we consume, as near us as nature will allow," by that simple arjrangoment they would havo doubled tho value of their bushei of grain, and that is precisely what we seek by Protection - to bring nearcr to the producer of grain tho producer of materials and fabrics, and thereby increase the valuo of tho producís of both. Here is a man making axes and there is a man growing wheat, but they are 4,000 miles apart, and overy bushei has to pay three pecks to get to tho axeinaker. Bring them nearer together so that it tikos but one pock to get tho busliel to the axe-maker, and thore are three peclcs to divide between the wheatgrower and the axo-maker, and both are benefit d. My friend says that the great, impórtanos is toget ouid for quo. Now, in my judgment, the rirst nacussity is to havo quid and to have quo. (Great laughter.) Mr. Perry - Can you mention a singlo quid or a singlo quo that has como into existenen through Protection ? Mr. Greely - The beet-root sugar of Franco. Mr. Perry - We are discussinj of this country. Mr. Greeley - I will say the silk Lndustry of the United States, now growing stcadily in importance, in my judgmout oue of the promising industries on the face of tho earth ; or tho wholc body of edge-tools, which formerly wero imported are now made in this country cheapeí and better than they are made anywhere elsc, and you cannot get any man to-day to take a hundred dollars' worth of Amcriean axos and exchonge them for the samo number of axes made anywhere on the face of the earth. I will say in regard to thie, there is no protection unless it raises the price. I ira a newBpaper printer. Always havo lived by it. Now, if you will givo mo all the market for all the newspapers I can produce I will agree to reduce the price and make more money than I do now. If European newspapors could como in competition with ours they could not be sold so cheap as they are now. It is tho large and steady demand that enables us to sell them so cheap. Foreign competition would spoil that demand, and then the newspapers wculd be dearer. Mr. Greeley continuod at some length and thon concluded as tollows: "I am sure that there would bo moro production if every nation made fabrics instead of merely producing raw matorials, more people wculd bo cmployed, more talont doveloped, more ingenuity instituted, and the general woll-being of mankind would thereby be increased. This is my idea. I have considered it long. I do notprofess to be infallible, but I am quite sure that wo who hold this doctrine are not less intelligent and honost than our friend the professor. Mr. Perry rejoined in ft romarks, and the club then adjournod. Tho telograph gays Grant has taIten a severo cold. He always i taking lOmething.

Article

Subjects
Old News
Michigan Argus