814 THE QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. 



the average of prices in a protected country, a low price; but 

 the home price of commodities largely exported will always 

 be determined by their value for export, which they can never 

 exceed. This is not only theoretically true, but as a matter of 

 fact every farmer knows that the price of wheat in America 

 is always governed by the price at Liverpool, which is daily 

 cabled to this country, and which our home prices, within 

 certain very narrow limits, implicitly follow. The same is true 

 of all other commodities which we produce largely in excess 

 of home requirements. The result is, as is claimed, that the 

 producer of these commodities in the United States is greatly 

 at a disadvantage as compared with his fellow-citizens, since 

 he is compelled to purchase supplies at protected prices, with 

 the proceeds of commodities sold in competitive markets. 

 In order, therefore, that the producer of ex[)orted staples 

 should have equal protection with the producers of other 

 commodities, it is claimed that it is necessary to compensate 

 him by a bounty on all staples exported. As it is claimed that 

 this would raise the price for export by the amount of the 

 bounty, it would raise the price of all consumed at home by the 

 same amount, since no one would sell for home consumption 

 at a lower price than he would receive for export. The pro- 

 tected classes would then pay to the farmers such an increased 

 price for the commodities in question as would afford to them 

 the same protection that they themselves enjoy. This is 

 claimed to be evidently just. 



To this argument one part}^ replied that the injustice dis- 

 closed is self-evident, but that the remedy proposed is inade- 

 quate and futile. The proper course, as they claim, for the 

 })roducers tlius injured to pursue, is iiot to attempt to juggle 

 by balancing one injustice again.st another, but to abandon the 

 whole scheme of protection, thus putting all upon an equality 

 at once. This opens up the whole question of free trade and 

 protection, which was discussed in the last chapter. 



The protectionists meet the argument in another way. 

 They agree with the free traders that the remedy is inadequate 

 and futile, but deny the injustice, claiming that the producer 

 of staple oxi)orto(l products shares equally with others the 



