FREE TRADE AND AND PROTECTION.

Feilding Star, 11 June 1885, Page 2

FREE TRADE AND AND PROTECTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAB. Sir,— The questioft.of "fr«e trade A and protection" wbicli yo# v #ay, inye*»^B J terday's issue, has in the presejn dis^^H cussion unintentionally drif ted~into tfa^^H consideration of : question? of pplitj^^^H economy is one of the most impoJ^^^^J questio^^mbj^^^^ the scien^^^^H pol^tf^^Hj^^^^^kn quite u^^^^^l to p^^^^^^^^^^^w>le pan^^^^H you^^^^^^^^^^^^^tarftijf^^^^^H she is, anWl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H consumes the ri^^^^PQHHPHIPI with all deference^QJEt mos^Krongly '- protest against any Such cmdimim 1 . being drawn from the proposition. It means nothing more, as I hare "Eef orif pointed out, than that a nation ? s «xe«e» T of exports over imports goes to jmphr. u debt "due from that nation to the country through which such exceßßTftriseSf; or to the countri os generally fthrpngh'-a which the aggregate balances creating: /, • such, excess have arisen. Except.when. < i there is indebtedness between national; all exports and imports must ineyitaibly balance one another, and theiprq^ta^ , of the respective merchants uponftlie transactions are absorbed in the ?osqe* ir^ There is no such thing as "a bahwco . ' of trade" (a phantom and delusion which I notice you still harp- upon), the theories respecting , which/" as I pointed out in a previous letter, have — vlong since been exploded ;^ajid;i^ivpport of my view I may conclude with the following quotation fffrm ; /Mfljn Smith's "Wealth of Nations j'^^Nothing:can be more ■ absurd: ithan< { thuK whole doctrine of thejßalance of trade. Wheatwo places trade .witii ,qne another, this doctrine supposes that is, the balance be even neither of them loses or gains ; b,ut if it leanß in any degree to one side that one of theni' loses, and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exa&t equilibrium. Both suppositions'' ar^ v/ false."— lam, .. ; , li; '' f y SaXIJEL Gki6DBEHKKB.'^S^ June 10, 1885^ ; .''Jv.vj-vj .^