This is an OCR edition with typos.
|Publisher:||Bod Third Party Titles|
|Product dimensions:||5.83(w) x 8.27(h) x 0.45(d)|
Read an Excerpt
ON PROTECTION AS A NATIONAL POLICY. Does a protective tariff, so called, benefit a country, as a whole ? That is, including all lawful interests and industrial enterprises of a country, in the comparison, would they, on the average, prosper better under a high tariff or under a free-trade policy ? This question covers all the debatable ground between the American protectionists and the freetraders. H. C. Carey, the highest protectionist authority in the United States, denounces indirect taxation by means of tariffs for revenue, in the severest terms he can employ. He places the inequitable distribution of wealth, caused by a revenue tariff, on a level with the "'distribution " caused by pocket-picking; indeed, he describes the operation of such a tariff as pocket-picking by public authority. He proceeds to say: " Tariffs, for revenue, should have no existence. Interferences with trade are to be tolerated only as measures of self-protection." A pupil of Carey's, who adopts all his arguments, theories and conclusions, but who excels his master in simplicity and force of expression, says: H. C. Carey's " Present, Past and Future," p. 472. " If there is any valid reason for giving any degree of protection, it must be for the purpose of cheapening production, not for the purpose of enabling a favored class of producers to continue a business which would otherwise be unprofitable, by making up their losses out of the pockets of the consumers." The evils incident to protection are here distinctly admitted; but the admission is accompanied by the allegation that these incidental evils are more than counterbalanced by the benefits which protection confers upon society in theaggregate -upon the people, as a whole, not simply upon " a favored class of producers." I...