PROTECTION AND FOREIGN TRADE.

Timaru Herald, Volume LII, Issue 5167, 13 June 1891, Page 4

PROTECTION AND FOREIGN TRADE.

' (New York Tiibune, 25th April.) 3 It was said a few days ago that returns of , foreign commerce for March and for sis * months under the operation ot the M'Kinley 3 tariff would go far to refute tho pretences of , freetraders. The ofGciil returnß for March fire . now printed, and they show that the exports .. of merchandise daring the six months ending J with March have been 518,591,770 dol., I against 496,758,508 dol. for the same months , of the previous year, an increase of 21,833,262 , dollars. Yet the exports lastyear were much ! the largest ever known during tho same period, , except m the Bingle year 1880 81, when the I foreign demand for breadstuff) was large be- , yond precedent. During the last six months, I on tho contrary, the shipments of breadstuffs . have been considerably smallor than m other recent years, partly because of tbo failure of crops and the scarcity of corn and oat», and partly beoause speculators forced up [ tho price of wheat and held it for ( montha above the parity of Liverpool. But , m spita of short crops and ruinous epecmlntiocs the exports of merchandise have been alf most the largest ever known for a similar period. The freetraders constantly assert th'it a high tariff suppresses exports ; that if we do \ not buy from other countries they will not [ baj from us But their theory, as ÜBual, } wenra the aapect of falsehood when seen m 3 the light of facts. t The official report of imports puta lo rout another set of free-trade falsehoods. It was r aassrtad befoso and after the M'Kinley bill j went, into operation, that it would stop im- , porfa because it enormously enhanced the j priceß of overything tho people consumed. The fact is that the value of imports for the six montha ending with M»reh, the entire J period except six daya of October under tho , operation of the M'Kinley bill was 403,436,812 I dol against 381,294,783 dol for the corresponding months of the previous year, an in> , crease of 22,162,039 dol. But the imports of k the previous year had been much the largest I known m any year of the country's history. . Plainly such a, vast amount of merchandise I could not have been brought hither within a , half year if the freo-trado stories about the j bill had been true. The fact is that the bill j does not Buppreaa imports, but permits m tho aggregate larger iroportationa than have ever . been known m anj previous year. f The truth about tho M'Einley bill is that it reduced more duties than it advanced. It , placed on the free list many articles besides , sugar, and ao greatly reduced duties on many others that imports of theEe have increased. These things were done m order to dear away i as far ss poßsiblo the duties not needed for I revenue and not useful for protection. But at the same time tho du' ics on many other products were advanced, m order (o give efficient protection to home inf!u3fry, and tho importations of Uiopo products have generally declined. If fico trade slories had been trus, if dutios had been gonerally raiiod, thero , must, have been a lurgo decrease m tho aggro- | ga'o of imports. But so greatly havo the imports increased of articles placed on the ( free li>,t, or articles on which duties wore ref duoed, that thero /obullb on incr.OFe of nearly j 6 por cent, m ihe aggregate volume of imports fur tV.e six months, notwithstanding the s considciMble decrease m woollen and other I articles on which protection waß made more efficiont. ' Ac tho truth comes to bo known about this meiiture through tho official records of this and other countries, the pooplo will learn how outrageously Democrats falsified about it, and how completely its actual workings refute I heir theories It would bn strange if thero ehould not follow a reoontmont which the Democratic party will find it hard toconJ front.