EDITOR'S TABLE, 



411 



selves in order that certain manufactures 

 may be established in the country ? "We 

 answer, that if the people were really 

 willing to impose the tax upon them- 

 selves, there would be no need of the 

 law. It is just because if the cheaper 

 goods were accessible, everybody would 

 buy them, that the applicant for "pro- 

 tection " seeks to tie the hands of the 

 public. But we are not without posi- 

 tive information as to the relation of 

 protection to politics. We know that 

 in the highest political circles men who 

 have had the tariff fixed to suit them- 

 selves are regarded as having received 

 important personal favors. They have 

 been put in the way of accumulating 

 large stores of " fat " at the expense of 

 the public, and if they are not forward 

 in yielding up a little of the fat, when 

 required, to help the party that framed 

 the tariff so accommodatingly, indignant 

 chairmen or secretaries of committees 

 are apt to talk in a very menacing way 

 about " frying the fat out of them." 



The issue we see here is a moral one. 

 Certain relations between the state and 

 individuals are moral, natural, right. 

 Certain other relations are abnormal, 

 unnatural, wrong. Certain relations 

 give rise to no evil ; others are insep- 

 arable from evil. The protectionist 

 regime is fruitful — can any candid man 

 deny it ? — in hypocrisy and fraud : hy- 

 pocrisy on the part of those who, while 

 solely intent on their own gain, make 

 the most specious pretenses of patriot- 

 ism and philanthropy ; and fraud on the 

 part of those who are led into attempts 

 to evade a portion of the huge tax levied 

 on the goods they import. The regime 

 of non-interference would, in these two 

 respects, lift a tremendous burden oft 

 the morals of the community. Who can 

 pretend, in the face of known facts, that 

 the relations between the seekers after 

 protection and the tariff-makers are of 

 a moral kind ? How is it possible that 

 we should have honest legislation, when 

 interest after interest is constantly ap- 

 pealing for assistance or the continu- 



ance or increase of assistance, pledging 

 itself tacitly if not expressly to return 

 the favor when election -day comes 

 round ? 



A well-known French economist, M. 

 Courcelle-Seneuil, has lately expressed 

 himself so vigorously and pointedly on 

 this subject in the columns of the Nou- 

 velle Revue, that we are tempted to 

 quote one or two of his observations. 

 Speaking of the common opinion that 

 it is the business of government to pro- 

 mote the wealth of the community by 

 special legislation, he says : " All inquiry 

 in regard to this matter demonstrates : 

 (1) That governments in general have 

 no competence in questions of trade and 

 industry of a nature to authorize them 

 to regulate and control these depart- 

 ments of activity; (2) that the best 

 means of enriching a nation is to leave 

 its industry and commerce absolutely 

 free ; (3) that in interfering in commerce 

 and industry the governing power can 

 only transfer to one citizen the wealth 

 of another, contrary to the very end of 

 its institution, which is to maintain peace 

 by justice. Justice consists in defending 

 individual citizens against the violence 

 or fraud which their fellows might 

 otherwise exercise against them, while 

 leaving to each as far as possible the 

 conditions of existence natural to him 

 as an inhabitant of the planet. The 

 government could only favor a certain 

 number by giving them what it had 

 taken from the rest; in other words, by 

 practicing the very thing which its busi- 

 ness is to prevent — namely, injustice. 

 . . . For example: I am carrying on an 

 industry; I affirm that the nation has 

 an interest in having that industry fa- 

 vored or 'protected,' as they say; I add 

 that, if it is not protected, either by 

 means of a bounty paid out of the public 

 chest, or by a tariff that shall enable me 

 to levy a tax upon consumers for my own 

 benefit, I can not continue my business. 

 One or other of the two affirmations 

 may be false, and both commonly are. 

 Nevertheless, the public are so accus- 



