know, that the farmers of this country, as such, have asked for no protection and need none. All they ask is an open field and fair play. They who manipulate tariffs know, and you know, that we are fast coming to be the feeders of the world; that more than eighty per cent. of our exports are of farm products, and that in the production of those I have named and many others, we have practically no competitors. Forming the bulk of our exports, their price is regulated by the foreign market, and any duty laid for their protection, so called, has virtually no effect, and to lay it is but adding insult to injury. Then why is it done? For the purpose of deception-nothing more. This is what I said and desire to emphasize.

But the worst in point of misrepresentation is yet to come. The Senator says that I, in speaking of the tariff, said: "I would begin to remove it at once, and continue the process gradually and discreetly, until every vestige should disappear." Now mark just what I did say: "I would not remove all protection at once, because it would disturb our industries unduly, but I would begin to remove it at once, and continue the process gradually and discreetly until every vestige should disappear." Evidently in making his speech as well as in preparing his paper, Senator Anderson did not expect to have to defend it against the lawyers and the professors.

The Senator is disposed to dispute my assertion that a protective duty, as such, tends to raise the price of the home product (and, for that matter, of the imported product as well), and that if it fails to do so, it fails of the very end for which it is imposed. It is true, nevertheless, though it may not always seem politic to admit it. It is a curious fact that the average protectionist, when thrown upon the defensive, is sure to contend that the tariff does not raise the price of the home product, but whenever he has no thought of having to defend himself against the "lawyers or professors," or anybody else, he contends for the very opposite, and even holds it to be the legitimate business of government in many cases to barricade against nature's bounties, whether of sunshine, soil or climate. There is a duty, we are told, of fortyfive per cent. on calicos. Is the price of calico raised when you can buy it for five cents a yard? Of course it is, if you

could buy it without the duty for four cents or three cents a yard. "The protection," it is said, "consists in this, that it gives our manufacturers the privilege of supplying our own market instead of foreigners doing it at the same, or higher prices." There you have it all in a nut shell. But the trouble is the veriest monopolist asks for nothing more. All he wants or gets is the privilege of supplying the market. Give him this and he will take care of the price. Why, friend Anderson, no doubt would take the contract, and fill it too, of furnishing the state of Wisconsin with all its wool, if you would just guarantee him the privilege of supplying the market. Of course he would not think of putting up the price on us! But it will be said it is not proposed to cut off competition within national limits; yet if competition has any effect to keep down monopoly prices within certain geographical bounds, I have yet to hear any substantial reason why it will not have the same effect if extended beyond them. I have shown what the "privilege of supplying the market" means, if it means anything.

The Senator's illustration in this connection is too interesting to pass unnoticed, but unfortunately for him, it proved too much. He thinks if the government should impose a tax upon the importation of lawyers and professors, it would have no effect upon my salary or Mr. Sloan's fees, but would protect us in giving us the work to do instead of a foreigner." Now that is a happy thought, and, like many another great discovery that has burst upon the world, it startles by its very simplicity. The only wonder is that it has never occurred before to these zealous friends of the American "workingman." We shall now expect to hear of all the great "captains of industry," including the wool growers, advocating a tax upon the importation of " European cheap labor," for the benefit of the "American laborer." Of course it would have no effect upon his wages, but then it would give him the privilege of supplying the home market with his services, don't you see? What the laborer is panting for is something to do; what he shall receive for his work is a matter of secondary consideration! Now isn't it strange that so simple and so cheap a device as this for securing the

welfare of the " American laborer" has never been urged by his employer?

The Senator fairly revels in statistics, and it seems almost cruel to dispel any of his bright illusions. His argument from the wonderful growth of our commerce under a system of protection, has been more than answered by citing the fact that England has even discounted us under free trade. But our exports are in excess of our imports, while the reverse is true in her case, and this must certainly settle the question in favor of protection. Yet one who has not discovered that the mere relation between the exports and imports of a country for one year, or for a series of years, independently considered, proves nothing as to its financial condition or material growth, hasn't exhausted this subject, to say the least. The foreign trade of Great Britain at the present time amounts to more than $3,400,000,000 annually, and her imports are more than $600,000,000 in excess of her exports.

If the gentleman's argument is worth anything, she must be rapidly nearing the brink. Now, what are the facts? England, to-day, has practically the carrying trade of the world, and for that service to other nations she must be paid, and her pay comes in the way of imports. She has loans and investments, too, in almost every country of the world, and the interest on these, and dividends, come back to her in imports. Instead, then, of this great excess of imports being an evidence of approaching bankruptcy, it is the highest evidence, when all the facts are considered, of a prosperous exchequer. The imports of France are largely in excess of her exports, and the same is true of Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and all the leading industrial states of Europe. The reverse is true of Russia, Spain, Turkey, Egypt and all those states which are recognized as industrially inferior.

The truth is, a nation's imports, from its own standpoint, ought always to exceed its exports; but from an independent view, and in the long run, they must balance. If a nation will not buy, it cannot sell. All trade proper is an exchange of equivalents. This is its very essence. It exacts as much as it gives. A single transaction may involve loss,

but continuous trade balances itself on the average of dealings. To buy is to sell, and to sell is to buy. Neither individual nor nation that refuses to do the one can hope to do the other. This is the first absolute incontestable truth on which free trade rests.

This brings us to a matter that deserves a moment's notice. I have said that England has practically the carrying trade of the world, and that this accounts in a large measure for the great excess of her imports. Now what is our own showing? From 1770 to 1790, almost the entire carrying trade of this country was on American bottoms. Even in 1860, just before the Morrill tariff was fastened upon us, we had from seventy to seventy-five per cent. of this trade. Now we have left but the beggarly pittance of sixteen per cent. of it. Congress has been trying to devise some means to revive this crippled industry, but still clings to a high protective tariff, which has been the chief instrument in its overthrow. A large portion of our boasted exports goes to pay England and other countries for carrying our own products. And what is most significant of all, more than eighty per cent. of all our exports are of agricultural products, which, so far from being protected, are, as a whole, doubly cursed by the tariff. Could any, then, be "cooler" than to cite this very excess of our exports as an argument in support of the protective system!

I want to say in conclusion that this discussion of the tariff has come to stay; and I warn the Senator that he must prepare henceforth to defend what he has to offer against teachers, preachers, lawyers, doctors-everybody. No one has a monopoly of interest in this matter. It is a question which comes home to all. We are all laborers, too, in the true sense, who are engaged in honorable pursuits. There is no such thing in this country as a producing class, or a consuming class, as such. All men are consumers, and must be, and whoever renders an honorable service for which a return service is freely given, is a producer. All then have interests at stake in the approaching conflict. The war may not end in this decade or the next, but peace will come and it will be "peace with honor."

A GRANGER WHO WANTS COLD FACTS.

CRANTON, Illinois, February 3.-Editor of the Chicago Tribune: I have just had an argument with some protectionists about the amount of tax farmers have to pay on their goods of different kinds. I contended that nearly all the exports of Illinois were non-protected products, because their price was fixed by foreign markets, but that the imports of Illinois were all either protected goods or foreign made imported articles-I suppose in the aggregate about four dollars of the former to one of the latter. If I am right in this estimate, then for every dollar we of this state pay to the government in the shape of duty on foreign goods, we pay four dollars in the form of bounty to the eastern manufacturers on the stuff we buy from them.

Now will the Tribune be so good as to state how much the tax is on each of the articles a farmer's family must buy. I wish to get some definite notion of how much tribute we Grangers have to pay to the eastern manufacturers for the support of their "infant industries." I believe this tribute is the money that is called by the soft, persuasive and patriotic sounding term, " protection of American industry." Please give us the cold facts to paste in our hats.

AGRICOLA.

REPLY: The cold facts may give our granger readers a chill colder than the frosty weather does, unless perchance their indignation should warm them up. We will classify a few of the items of the expenditure of the Illinois farmer's family, with the amount per cent. of tax it pays either to the government on the article imported, or to the manufacturer if produced in the eastern states: