AMERICAN TRADE POLICY. (Glasgow Herald.)

North Otago Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2225, 18 June 1879, Page 2

AMERICAN TRADE POLICY. (Glasgow Herald.)

It » a curious fact that while tho cry for Protection ii being railed throughout this country, the birthplace and homo of Free Trade, the inclination towards Free Trade is daily becoming more pronounced in the United States, heretofore the adopted home of Protection. The whirligig at times works<uany strange changes in this world of ours. Who would have thought to find United States journals reading a British dependency wholesome lessons in economic science ? Yet such is the case. The New York Commercial Chronicle takes the lead. It replies very temperately to the defiant statements of certain Canadian Statesmen and pseudoeconomists who assert that the new tariff of Canada embodies a policy of retaliation upon the United States, and that if that policy does not endanger the British con* nection, " then all the worse for that connection." Why should we can if the Americans an angry at onr tariff say these enlightened Canadians. We have left our ports open to their goods long enough, while they kept their gates shut to our*. They have rejected all our advances and returned evil for good in every way. Evidently by the abrogation of our old Reciprocity Treaty they wished to starve us into annexation. Bat we won't be annexed ; and no matter how we anger them and how we offend Great Britain.

we mean to build up our country in the w»y we consider beet. This is in effect what the Canadian Proteetionista openly declare. But, " No," replies the Chronicle, "you are quite wrong. We hare no desire for annexation — our appetite for territory is quite sated — but we have an iuappeasable appetite for trade. \our trado is not of so Tery vast importance to ua, bat still we don't want to lose ii. We have been foolish to put so many fetters npon it ourselves ; don't you be doubly foolish and lay on more. In framing your tariff, you are taking for pattern one of the very worst aystems to be found among commercial nations and are adopting the very worst defects of that system — ad valorem duties, the union of these with speoifie duties, with all consequent evils ef espionage and vexatious complications. Protection has whispered to you 'higher prioes for what you sell,' but has omitted to add, 'and for what you buy ;' and, as usual, Protection will not keep out the goods at which it aims." " Political annexation," continues the Chronicle, "is not suggested by Nature, and it is of no consequence ; annexation for trade purposes is sos uggestive, and would be for the advantage of both countries, but in the largest measure for Canada. As the more powerful, we can afford to scorn the petty plea that in negotiating now we may seem to be yielding to menace ; and inasmuch as the difficulty has been in adjusting the respective concessions, we can afford to err on the sido of generosity. Canada cannot hurt us by buying ; she oannot buy without selling ; and we ought now to be past the point of fearing competition from her in our own market*. Is not the present a good opportunity for initiating a now negotiation for closer trade relations i Undoubtedly it is, and not for revising the trad* relations between these two countries only, but also the relations of both with th» rest of the world. The Industrial League of Philadelphia, which embraces the leading Protectionists of the country, has discovered and announced that the principle of Protection is not capable of universal application. Protection, they urge, in order to succeed, must cover a country of varied soils and climates, which moans that it is applicable to tiie United States alone. This change of idea is, of coarse, due to the action of Canada, which country they characterise as of too small a population, too limited a home market, and too exclusive in her productions to be a favorable subject for au experiment in Protection. They make a very ingenious attempt to prove that what may be a palatable sauce for the goose is not necessarily a suitable condiment for the gander. We do not need to repeat all their arguments, but, as may be expected, they fail of their object The New York Times disposes of them very neatly in a reoent article, and asks the potent question—" If 5,000,000 consumers are too few, what should the number be to make the protective system an assured sucoess ? American manufacturers are no doubt beginning to realise that they need foreign outlets for their goods, and hence the warmest advocates of Protection are constrained to decry Protection in every other country than their own. Clearly the system is in a bad way, and, as the New York Times pertinently remarks, "It is highly probable that in the growing dotnand for a foreign outlet those who make and unmake tariff laws will discover that the only way our merchandise can get out is by so cutting down the barrier of Protection that foreigners can sell to us as well as buy from us." So we think, and so we hava always thought, and we shall welcome the time when all Americans will think the same. That that time is rapidly approaching we see that there are strong indications. Meanwhile those among us who think that America is even now cutting away the ground from our feet, in spite of the existing barrier, would do well to carefully peruse Mr A. J. Wilson *s excellent paper in the March number of Macmillan. It is as refreshing to notice these indications of economic advancement in the United Stales as it is discouraging to mark the retrograde movement in Canada. It is difficult to see how the Canadians can persuade themselves that they can benefit in any way by their new tariff. Their trade is not of vital importance to the United States at present ; indeed, it has been steadily falling off. The aggregate, which was nearly 90 millions in 1873, was down to 75 million* in 1876, and 62 millions in 1878. The Canadian trad* was lsst year only 5 2 per cent of the whole trade of the United States, so it would not be a huge loss to that country where it lost altogether, which, however, it could not be. From the Canadian point of view the position is different. Great Britain took last year 41 millions of her 73 millions of exports, while the United States Wok 33, leaving only 9 millions to other countries. So in directing a tariff against Great Britain and the United States she must slay her own trade, for she cannot sell if she will not buy. She is thus about to still further stunt that natural growth which has already been so checked by the artificial barriers set up by the Americans, and which these last are now beginning to see ought to bt removed. Tha advocates of Protection in Europe as well as in Canada and Victoria, " who seek an exemplar in the United States, fall into the great mistake of supposing that the unparalleled commercial sucoess of that country has been due to, instead of having been in spite of, her protective policy. When the Americans the nisei yes aro pointing out that error, there are hopes of better counsels ere long prevailing elsowhere. Beciprocitarians in general, and those also in particular who may be disposed to accept Mr Wallace's ingenious attempt to prove that " Reciprocity is the only true free-trade," wonld do well to study the position of Canada in hnr relations towards Great Britain and the United Sutcs.