5 o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



whether at any time in the nation's history there has been so 

 deep and general an interest felt in the subject as exists to-day. 

 The chief feature in the renewed controversy is in the presenta- 

 tion of the free-trade argument from the English standpoint, and 

 the method of reasoning there employed, with that used by the 

 distinguished advocate of protection, which is so familiar to us. 

 We shall endeavor to show that the former is the only method by 

 which a satisfactory and truthful result can be obtained in any 

 discussion regarding a subject of so complex a nature as trade. No 

 word more aptly describes the nature of the Gladstone-Blaine con- 

 troversy than " duel." The nature of the dispute necessitates di- 

 rect antagonism. Free trade and protection stand directly opposed 

 to each other. Like similar poles of a magnet, they are mutually 

 repellent. They stand as much opposed to each other as virtue 

 and vice. There are no grounds, nor can there be, for any com- 

 promise. One is freedom, the other restraint. The one recognizes 

 a natural, the other an artificial law. If one is right, the other is 

 wrong. The combatants in the recent contest are champions of 

 their respective schools. Both were well equipped for the en- 

 counter, and each side has undoubtedly had the best words pos- 

 sible spoken in its behalf. Especially is this true in the article 

 for protection. No abler advocate of the system could have been 

 chosen. Moreover, this duel means more to Mr. Blaine and the 

 Republican party than a mere intellectual contest. Far beyond 

 any literary value the discussion may possess lies its political 

 significance. A great political battle has been recently fought on 

 this very issue, and, unless our prophets and wiseacres completely 

 err, the presidential election of 1892 will occupy the same battle- 

 field. Every incentive that pride and ambition can furnish con- 

 spired to urge Mr. Blaine to endeavor, to the best of his ability, to 

 successfully refute his opponent's arguments and put him utterly 

 to rout, even though he appear in the person of so illustrious and 

 respected a man as the English ex-premier. 



In any dispute arising between freedom on the one hand and 

 restriction on the other, the burden of proof necessarily falls upon 

 the advocate of restriction. Freedom is first in the order of things. 

 Restriction is an innovation, and should explain its raison d'etre. 

 It would be sufficient for the free-trader to deny the advantages 

 claimed for the protective system, and leave its advocate to prove 

 his case. Mr. Gladstone has, however, gone further, and has not 

 only given a general denial, but, by a series of arguments as brill- 

 iant as they are logical, demonstrated the superior advantages 

 that flow from free trade. 



The nature of the succeeding remarks finds its apology in the 

 absence of anything like logic in the disquisitions of modern polit- 

 ical writers. When so great an authority as the acknowledged 



