54 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



problem before liini is to show that. the system of commercial 

 restriction has been a greater source of wealth for the United 

 States than free trade would have been.* 



He goes at once to the experience of the country and selects the 

 following instances for examination : The high protective periods 

 of 1812 to 1816, 1824 to 1833, 1842 to 1846, and 1861 to the present 

 time ; the partially protected period of 1833 to 1842 and the free- 

 trade periods of 1816 to 1824 and 1846 to 1861. Here are seven 

 instances, in four of which the effect is present, in one partially 

 present, and in two absent. Now, assuming that all causes but 

 one be eliminated, and assuming that one to be protection, the 

 first four periods should be marked by the production of great 

 wealth, the fifth by the production of moderate wealth, and the 

 last two by the production of the least or even by the loss of 

 wealth, calculated, of course, on a time basis such as per annum. 

 Now, what do we find ? Assuming that Mr. Blaine's rapid and 

 cursory summary of those periods is correct, we learn that during 

 the first-named period the country was sustained through a war, 

 and that genuine prosperity characterized the other three men- 

 tioned high-protected periods, excepting that from 1873 to 1879, 

 in which the business of the country was prostrated and the panic 

 of 1873 ensued. We further learn that the partially protected 

 period of 1833 was very disastrous to trade, resulting in the panic 

 of 1837, and that that of 1816 to 1824 was equally disastrous, while 

 the greater part of the free-trade period of 1846 to 1861 was char- 

 acterized by the greatest prosperity. Here, then, we find pros- 

 perity under a high protective system and prosperity during a 

 free-trade era. Similarly, we find disaster under high protection, 

 disaster under low protection, and disaster under free trade ; and 

 from this confusion Mr. Blaine mildly tells us he has proved his 

 case, and by the great method of Bacon too ! Could anything 

 be further from the truth ? If his argument proves anything at 



to their mathematical form, are very precise. But when they concern human actions they 

 are the result of all the motives which govern those actions ; in other words, they are the 

 result not merely of selfishness, but also of sympathy. And as Adam Smith, in the Wealth 

 of Nations, dealt with only one of those passions viz., selfishness he would have found 

 it impossible to conduct his generalization from statistics, which are necessarily collected 

 from the products of both passions. Such statistical facts were in their origin too complex 

 to be generalized, especially as they could not be experimented upon, but could only be 

 observed and arranged. Adam Smith, perceiving them to be unmanageable, very properly 

 rejected them as the basis of his science." (Buckle's History of Civilization, vol. ii, p. 367.) 

 * It is strange how the disputants who have succeeded Mr. Blaine in this controversy 

 seem to lose sight of the main issue. No one can deny the facts which these gentlemen 

 unceasingly proclaim, viz., that the creation of wealth, and the growth of the manufacturing 

 industries of the nation during the enforcement of protective laws, have been prodigious. 

 But not one writer has offered the slightest particle of evidence to show that a greater 

 advance would not have been made under a system of free trade. 



