of the least resistance. If the soil be rich, and timber abound, they will obtain their food, clothing, and shelter, by cultivating grain and the domestic animals, and converting the forest into buildings. But if soil be wanting, they will build ships and launch them upon the ocean, and take fish from its waters and seals from its rocks, appropriating for themselves what they want, and exchanging the surplus for such articles as they need, with other communities which have them in excess. And so the world around, and in ever-enlarging and indefinitely multiplying circles. Impelled by their wants, and controlled by the necessities of nature, the productive efforts of men encompass the world and harmonize its interests.

This evidently is the natural way, and must be the most effectual way of developing the industries of a people, and of the world. Can the insight of a king or a parliament be a surer guide for a people in their business, than the combined insight of the entire nation, each familiar with his own sphere of operations, and having a direct personal interest in the success of his own labors? Impossible! If, then, the government tempts its subjects by rewards from the natural course, it must do so to their harm. And besides, where does the government get the means of thus tempting them? From the people themselves, of course; by taxing them all for the benefit of a few, who are thus induced to turn their industry into the new and favored channels. The government adds nothing to the wealth of the community; it only bestows on a few what it has first raised from the many. Can any one believe that a nation is enriched by this unnatural, round-about, artificial process? And if it is not, then its prosperity and growth, which are the essential conditions of anything like independence, are not promoted thereby.

Every young and feeble nation is liable, of course, to be overrun by older and more powerful ones, whatever may be its arts, or the forms of its industry. If its citizens are few and feeble, incapable of presenting any considerable array against an enemy, no variety nor abundance of manufactures will save it. These will only make them a more tempting prey. Whereas, if it possess a citizenship formidable in numbers and courage, resolute of purpose, and conscious of their strength, they will supply themselves with weapons, and wrest the means of support from sources little thought of.

Jamque faces et saxa volvunt; furor arma ministrat.

Necessity will prove the mother of invention; and now that there is a real demand for them, the needed products and manufactures will spring up as by magic, without any tariff-just as they did in our

Southern States, during our late civil war; or in the little Republic of Paraguay, in her heroic contest with three of the largest states of South America, almost surrounding her on all sides. By the time, therefore, that a people have become strong enough in numbers to make any pretensions to independence, there will naturally have grown up among them certain arts of production and manufacture, and others will readily be supplied on any pressing emergency. And, furthermore, by bestowing their industry upon what they can produce cheapest and best, and exchanging their surplus with other nations, a people are taking the most effectual course to avoid war; since nations that trade with each other have a common interest in maintaining peace. Wars between nations have diminished just in proportion as their mutual dependence and commerce have increased; and the freer commerce is, the wider is its range, and the more numerous its links of interdependence.

I cannot, therefore, regard the above maxim as entirely sound. Generally speaking, the natural course here, as in other cases, seems ̈ to me the best. By the order of nature, Providence indicates to us the order of industry; and I think we shall be more likely to succeed in our industries by following that order, than by endeavoring to contravene it. But whatever may be thought of this conclusion, as applicable to young and feeble nations, there can be no doubt of its truth applied to our own nation at the present time. What possible pretext can there be in our country for stimulating any manufacture by a protective tariff, in order to render us more secure against other nations? I think we are in but little danger of being attacked by other nations, while the recollection of the energy and resources which we exhibited in the late civil war are still fresh in their memory. To advocate a protective tariff among us, therefore, on this ground, is worse than folly; 'tis madness.

II. The second maxim which I propose to examine asserts that, although a protective tariff may at first increase the price of the protected articles, yet this is more than compensated by the great reduction in price which is certain to ensue in consequence of that protection.

That a protective tariff does at first increase the price of the protected articles is universally admitted, and is so obvious as scarcely to require any elucidation. If a given grade of cotton cloth imported from abroad is selling in any market at fifteen cents a yard, and, in order to enable the native inhabitants to manufacture it for themselves, a duty of five cents a yard is assessed by the government upon all which is imported into the country, why should not the

price of the article be raised in the same proportion? If it should not be, it must be because it was previously selling at a dearer rate than it could be afforded for, and hence can now be sold for less than twenty cents per yard. This might be so, if it was all imported from a single country, and from a single set of manufacturers; but could not be so, if there was any considerable competition in the market, as there must always be among the manufacturers of foreign nations. At any rate, the price must rise some in consequence of the duty; else it would be no protection to the native manufacturer. He would stand precisely where he did before the duty was laid. The protectionists are in the habit of saying-Mr. Greeley was wont to say -that under a tariff, as in other cases, the competition is between all the articles of the same kind offered in the market, whether domestic or foreign. It is obviously, however, but a one-sided competition. The home product has in its favor the whole difference of the tariff. If it can afford to forego the advantages of that protection, and enter into competition with the foreign articles at a figure below that to which it is entitled by the tariff, then the tariff is higher than it need be, and the excess is a tax on the people, wholly uncalled for and unjust. Either then there must be, at first, in consequence of a tariff, a rise in the price of articles equal, or nearly so, to the duty imposed, or else the tariff is not needed at all.

And if so at first, why not afterwards? The tariff referred to, it should be recollected, is a protective tariff, designed to encourage the production of articles which the people, of their own accord, are not disposed to produce. If left to themselves they prefer other employments, which they suppose to be more profitable, and choose to buy these articles rather than produce them. They consider the natural advantages of their country for other occupations greater than for these, and hence give themselves up wholly to those occupations, and exchange their surplus for the foreign articles. It is only by the stimulus of a high protective tariff, which places the foreign articles at a great disadvantage in their market, that a few of them have been induced to engage in their manufacture. In process of time, undoubtedly, by improved machinery and greater familiarity with the business, they will be able to produce the articles more cheaply than at first. But, is it not supposable that, in the mean time, those foreign nations which were acquainted with the manufacture before them, and who formerly supplied their market, may have cheapened the process in at least as great a proportion? In the progress of the industrial arts, nearly all processes of production are gradually cheapened, not only in one, but in all progressive nations. It is easy

therefore, as Mr. Greeley and others are very fond of doing, to point out, in successive years, and under successive tariffs, a gradual diminution in the prices of protected articles. But to ascribe this cheapening process to the effect of the tariff, is simply absurd. This is to mistake a post hoc for a propter hoc. The fact is, the effect of a protective tariff, at every subsequent period, must be substantially the same as it has already been shown to be when first establishedit either raises the price of articles, or else it is wholly unnecessary, and hence an entirely gratuitous injury to the whole people. And that it does raise the price of articles, and continues to do so, is evident from the fact that those interested in protected manufactures are always so anxious to retain the protection. Why should they be, if it does not raise their price? Indeed, this is the very end for which the tariff is imposed.

While, therefore, a people lose nothing by neglecting any species of industry or manufacture until it is as profitable as other employments which are open to them, they must inevitably lose by being drawn into these before that time, by means of protective tariffs; since such tariffs levy a heavy tax upon the mass of the people for the benefit of a few. And this disposes of the second maxim; it must be rejected as unsound. It is not sustained by the general principle which dominates in political economy.

III. The next maxim which I have to consider teaches that certain manufactures, having been thus introduced by protective tariffs, tend to introduce others, increase capital, develop the resources of the country, and furnish occupation for the different classes of a community.

That this is the order of things among an industrious and energetic people that among such a people all these results, in process of time, are brought about-is indeed quite certain. But how does it appear that they are due to the influence of tariffs? Do not the facts admit of a more rational explanation? It seems to me they do. In the natural course of things, as we have already seen, industry proceeds from simpler to more complicated processes. Our wants multiply and amplify, and industries multiply and amplify to meet them. But let us consider the particular things asserted in this maxim.

And in the first place, are tariffs necessary in order to introduce manufactures at the outset? Do not manufactures of some kind almost necessarily spring up before tariffs? Men must from the beginning feed and clothe and shelter themselves; and hence must manufacture clothing, dwellings, and mechanical and agricultural implements. Even the savage does this after his fashion, and long

strides are taken in civilization before we hear of protective tariffs. Under what protection, save that of the natural wants and demands ofs ociety, have grown up in this country those vast manufactures of houses, stores, and temples; of boots, shoes, and clothing; of railroads, cars, and engines; of hoes, shovels, printing presses, sewing machines, and, indeed, the great bulk of common articles of use? And even the manufacture of cotton and woolen cloths, which seem to be regarded by many as the only manufacture, had obtained a very considerable start in this country before it was thought of protecting them by a tariff. Indeed, it is well known that some of the principal early manufacturers of these fabrics, as Slater, of Rhode Island, and Lloyd, of Massachusetts, were opposed to the laying of a tariff on them, since it would promote over-production, and cause a fitful and uncertain market. It seems, then, that the "costly machinery," of which protectionists have so much to say, did not prevent men in early times from engaging in even these expensive manufactures without protection, or any desire for it.

But do manufactures, introduced by tariffs, tend to introduce other manufactures? Undoubtedly they do, if there be any such. No art can flourish alone. Every art both requires and begets others. Not only are agriculture, commerce, and manufactures mutually dependent on each other, but one species of manufacture necessitates others. Thus the manufacture of iron, besides being itself divided into several distinct processes, requires the arts of the miner and the collier, swells transportation and trade, and ministers in innumerable ways to almost every existing art. But iron was manufactured long before protective tariffs were invented. The hoe, the shovel, the scythe, and various mechanical tools and domestic utensils were made in this, as in other countries, while people were yet too simple to offer premiums on manufactures. The manufacture of these, as of other articles, it is true, has been greatly improved since those days, as we should naturally expect they would have been. But can this improvement in the various arts of manufacture, or any considerable share of it, be fairly attributed to protective tariffs? I very much doubt if it can be. As we have seen, all the great branches of manufacture had already got a good start in our country before protection was thought of. And is it supposable that, with such a people as ours, they would not have gone on steadily improving without any aid from the government? The industry of an ingenious and enterprising people, like ours, readily responds to the growing wants and wealth of the nation, and of the world. We may be quite sure that with such a people no want will escape their attention, or be allowed