THE ETHICAL VIEW OF PROTECTION. 633 



men, who are manufacturers and traders. At least, it does so at 

 first. After a while it does something else, and the manufacturers 

 and traders lose by it, just as the practical men of barbarous times 

 lost in the end more than they gained by war. 



We have now traced the idea of protection from the begin- 

 nings of human society down to the present time, and we know 

 what it means. What, on the other hand, is free trade ? The 

 term free trade explains itself. It is the opposite of protection. 

 It does not believe in barriers or covers or defenses. It does not 

 believe in organized selfishness at the expense of the many for 

 the good of the few. It believes in the most open and free inter- 

 course between all mankind. It believes that all men are brethren, 

 and that it is no more right to fine an Englishman, a German, or 

 a Frenchman because he can do a thing well than it is to fine an 

 American for employing an Englishman, a German, or a French- 

 man to do a thing well. It believes that the world is large enough, 

 the resources of nature sufficient, to enable every man to support 

 himself without joining a protected community and forswearing 

 the help of others. Protection, as we have seen, is organized self- 

 ishness. Free trade is based on the elemental principles of exist- 

 ence — on justice, fraternity, and love. 



But now come the orators and tell us, on one side, that protec- 

 tion means higher wages and greater prosperity for everybody, 

 and, on the other side, that free trade means reduced expenses for 

 the necessities of life and diminished taxation ; and the orators 

 on both sides have countless statistics to prove the absolute truth 

 of what they say. What are we, who are not practical men, and 

 who know that statistics will prove anything — what are we to 

 do ? Evidently we must fall back on elemental principles, and 

 extend our reasoning a little further. We must examine the 

 assertions of the orators in the light of general principles, and ask 

 whether they are true. 



Let us suppose a primitive group modeled after the groups of 

 barbarous times to be formed in our day in accordance with the 

 existing industrial conditions. Let us suppose a family group — 

 for such the early groups were — a family group consisting of a 

 father, a mother, three daughters, and four sons. In the barbar- 

 ous days families were sometimes of this size. The father, we 

 will imagine, is a shoemaker; the mother a milliner; the first 

 daughter, Sarah, a dressmaker ; the second daughter, Jane, a 

 cook ; the third daughter, Mary, a seamstress ; the first son, James, 

 a tailor; the second son, Thomas, a hat-maker; the third son, 

 John, a butcher; the fourth son, Henry, a grocer. Each has 

 grown to be expert at his or her particular trade, and is doing 

 well. But the third son, John, is a very practical man, and he 

 has studied what is called political economy. Political economy 



