THE FARMER'S INTEREST. 20I 



tage in producing cheaply, without, in the least, com- 

 pelling him to sell his productions at lower prices. On 

 the other hand, it is evident that every additional article 

 placed upon the list to be really protected, must, in a 

 measure, reduce the chances for the monopolist to pocket 

 monopoly profits, without contributing to the monopoly 

 profits of others. A duty which raises the price of agri- 

 cultural implements, discourages agriculture. A duty 

 which increases the price of agricultural fertilizers, dis- 

 courages the production of potatoes, grains, grasses, etc. 

 On the other hand, a duty which increases the price of 

 raw materials and food necessaries, discourages the man- 

 ufacture of cottons, boots, clothing, hardware, and sugar 

 refining ; but why should these manufactures be granted 

 an assurance of success at the expense of the farmer ? 



The protective system cannot be fair all round, unless 

 it protects all round. Though it is perfectly clear that 

 to protect all round is to increase the price of production 

 all round, until the object sought — the building up of 

 special industries — is defeated. Moreover, to increase 

 prices all round, or the cost of general production, is to 

 destroy the chances to supply foreign consumers. This 

 latter assumption is conspicuously shown in the continual 

 decline in Canada's exports of many lines of manufac- 

 ture since the adoption of her high-tax policy. And yet 

 the farmer is not true to the interests of his class, if he 

 does not demand either free trade all round, or protection 

 all round. 



The protectionists can hardly contend that the farmers 

 are benefited by being permitted to import some lines 

 of food, trees, seeds, etc., from other countries, instead of 

 producing these themselves, or buying them at protected 

 prices from their neighbors. Though no doubt all are 



Q* 



