FREETRADE AND PROTECTION IN AMERICA.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 134, 3 December 1894, Page 2

FREETRADE AND PROTECTION IN AMERICA.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir,— Mr S. Goodbehere is a typical Englishman. Like the majority of his countrymen, he is true to the freetrade creeds of the old political economists, -whose doctrines they swallow holusbolus without ever " thinking for themselves at all," or attempting to prove the truth, or otherwise, of the ancient, and in uiauy points exploded, beliefs of the Cobden school. Mr Goodbehere quotes from a speech of Mr Wilson, the United States tariff "reformer." Very good. It is Mr Wilson's side of the question ; but there are always two sides, and, unfortunately for that gentleman, in dealwitb the subject as illustrated by America herself, he is forced merely to indulge in what his countrymen would call " Hgh falutin," and ignores— as is usual with his side facts and figures. The past history of American commerce and general progress affords no ground for sustaining the statement that Protection has been an evil or a failure, and the recent Stato elections demonstrate that the American people intend to remain loyal to what has been termed the " national policy," both of the United States and Canada. The principles underlying tbat policy were practicaly embodied in the Constitution by the second act ever passed by Congress, and have been supported and approved by the ablest of the Presidents — Washington and Lincoln, Hamilton and Madison, Jefferson and Calhoun, Clay and Webster, Adams and Jackson ; besides hosts — nay, it might be more truthfully said, almost all her leading senators. During the last thirtythree years the United States has been under a policy of true Protection, and, during that time, " she has marched to a prosperity unrivalled in the world's history." The national debt, which, at the close of the war, reached the vicinity of .£700,000,000, has been reduced by two thirds, while the States and municipalities have also largely reduced their indebtedness. During the second year of the McKinley tariff the foreign trade of the country reached its highest point— £372,ooo,ooo, or nearly i-75,000,000 over 1889, the year before the tariff was altered. Mr Wilson could "high falute" (Have I coined a new form of the phrase, Mr Editor?) before a' British audience about the " burdens imposed by Protection," but he dared not particularise. He didn't tell his hearers that national taxation in the United States amounted to only jb'l per head of the population, as against nearly £2 10s in Freetrade England— that wages in the same occupations were 77 per cent higher in the former as compared with the latter— that under the McKinley law the cost of living in the United States was reduced, while in Great Britain during the same period it had increased. This latter fact was brought out in a report made in 1892 by a joint Committee of both Houses of Congress. Nor did Mr Wilson state the fact that the new industries, started as a result of the McKinley tariff, gave employment to 250,000 employes, and that while depression existed in every other country, there was prosperity in the United States alone. The McKinley tariff took over £13,000,000 less duties from the old Act, and it admitted duty free 53 per cent of the total imports ; surely not such a burdensome tariff after all. Duties, in the main, were levied upon such articles as could be produced in tho country, while such as could not be produced were admitted free — the principle of true Protection. This polioy may, as Mr Goodbehere claims, have its rise in " selfishness, jealousy, and ignorance." Still, it is true patriotism ; it is the principle of home and family— the principle acted out in. the daily life of the red hottest Freetrader (Aristotle included) that ever breathed. It is our country first, and our country, men first, and he who says that such is not his creed will not easily establish his claim to the title of patriot. Mr Goodbehere says the ablest writers on political economy have condemned Protection. The old school of political theorists — mere pencil and paper theorists—do so it is true, but our faith in the infallibility of their Freetrade dogmas is rudely shaken by the fact that the structure upon which many of their subtly-built theories leaned has crumbled to ruins at the base. The extraordinary developemnt of international commerce since Mill and Adam Smith wrote, and the practical lessons derived therefrom, have proved conclusively that many of thedoctrines of these writers will not admit of universal application ; and that many of their Freetrade canons-nay the very fundamental principles laid down by them-aro absolutely overturned. With your kind permission I will endeavor to provide the proof of this assertion in a future letter. Meanwhile, I will only say that Mr Goodbehere is a happy man if he can extract any comfort or hope for the future of Freetrade in the recent State elections, and the prospect which they present that tho arch apostle and high apostle of Protection, Governor McEinloy, will be the next President of the United States. 1 am, etc, Patriot.