on a firm basis, in giving it such power as would make it respected at home and abroad, in restraining French Republican influence and in establishing a permanent policy of neutrality. The unanimity and boldnesss which had been equal to the solution of most intricate financial problems, to the provision of ample revenue, and to the building up of an enduring national credit, were in strange contrast with its divisions and weaknesses at the time the Republicans won their first national victory.

Jefferson was supported by Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. He mapped a vigorous policy for his party, and in his choice of officials, showed little mercy for the Federals. The act repealing the establishment of circuit courts drove the Federals from their last hold on the government, and they never recovered their lost ground. Though they largely typed the wealth, intellect and culture of the country, there seemed to be no escape from the blow of 1800. In 1804 they were vanquished in every state except Connecticut, Delaware and part of Maryland. Jefferson adroitly turned every new situation to popular account, and as he had the entire confidence of the masses, he kept his party on a happy vantage ground with a vigor that was well-nigh autocratic. He gave to Republicanism a decided affirmative in action, and kept the Federals on a distractive defensive but little removed from the sharp agony that presaged a not distant death.

The unpopular Embargo Act of 1807 proved to be a Republican boomerang, by which the Federals profited to the extent of greatly reducing Republican majorities for Madison as President and in the House. But threats of war with England, and finally the war of 1812, served to render Madison's reelection sure. Just here a notable

PRINCIPLES OF FREE-TRADE.

FREE-TRADE exists only in theory. There is no actual free-trade in all the world.

Those who ground their arguments on the abstract doctrine of free-trade are free-traders.

Those who admit the necessity or propriety of a tariff for revenue only are free-traders. All the political economists of the free-trade school-Adam Smith, Mill, Ricardo, Say, List, Laveleye, Wells, Wayland-say that a government has a right to levy a tax for its support, and that the tariff is the least onerous and easiest collected tax.

A tariff for revenue with incidental protection begins to draw the line between the free-trader and the protectionist. A "Tariff Reformer " is either an outright free-trader, or a believer in a revenue tariff with incidental protection. He may be none the less a protectionist.

Politics confuse these terms. American politics are especially loose respecting them. We change both theories and terms with the rapidity of a new and enterprising country.

In England "free-trade" and "free-trader" carry no reproach. The meaning of the terms is understood, as well as the doctrine.

In political economy there is no doubt about terms. The free-trader and protectionist are what they profess to be.

The early economic writers were mostly free-traders. Protection, which all nations practiced, did not seem to admit of theories or encourage a literature.

It is well to understand that the astounding revelations in connection with the development of the United States have

(85)

shaken all the old theories respecting free-trade and protec tion, and made a new political economy possible, if not

necessary.

A primary law of political economy is that an increase of the productiveness of the country implies an increase of its capital. No law can create capital.

A second law is that productiveness depends on the number of laborers. Legislation cannot create men.

A third law is that productiveness depends on the stimulus to labor. Protection changes only the mode of labor. If it attracts manufacturers, it repels agriculturalists, and, vice versa. What it pays as a stimulus to one industry it subtracts from another. Hence there is no gain to labor as a whole.

Protection increases the price of an article. As price increases, demand diminishes. The less an article is wanted, the less it will be produced. The demand for labor diminishes. The price of labor diminishes. The stimulus to labor is decreased.

The watchword of free-traders, or freedom of exchange, is Laissez faire; laissez passer: “leave it alone." This is nature. Allow every one to buy and sell where he can do so most advantageously, whether in or out of his own country,

Revenue from customs on foreign goods may be permitted by the doctrine of laissez faire, but it is a tax, and a bad one.

To establish duties under the pretext of protecting national industries is an iniquitous measure fatal to the general interests.

By forcing a consumer to buy at a higher price than he would have otherwise, or elsewhere, to pay, is to perpetrate the injustice of taxing one class for the benefit of another.

sell can't buy. . . . The United States, for now a long series of years, has, in its fiscal policy, denied or ignored the truth of the above economic, axiomatic principles. It has not, indeed, in so many distinct words said to the American producers and laborers, You shall not sell your products and your labor to the people of other countries; but it has emphatically said to the producers and laborers of other countries, We do not think it desirable that you should sell your products or your labor in this country; and, as far as we can interpose legal obstructions, we don't intend that you shall! But in shutting others out, we have at the same time, and necessarily, shut ourselves in. And herein is trouble No. 1. The house is too small, measured by the power of producing, for those that live in it. And remedy No. 1 is to be found in withdrawing the bolts, taking off the locks, opening the doors, and getting out and clear of all restrictions on producing and the disposal of products."

Mr. Wells illustrates his theory by the failure of the United States to compete with England for the trade of Chili, Argentine and other countries. For though we could place our cotton manufactures in those countries as cheaply as England could, we refused to take their products freely in turn, or except by first imposing a duty on them. The position assumed by Mr. Wells that "all trade is at the bottom a matter of barter," ignores, in part, the function of money in the making of exchanges. He was answered thus by a "Protection" writer:

"The function of money, or its representatives, is that of enabling indirect exchanges to be made. The shoemaker buys his cabbages from one man and sells his shoes to an other. Trade, in place of being a right line between two points, becomes, so to speak, triangular and polygonal.

"This applies pre-eminently to nations, which are aggre

A

Chairman of House Committee of Ways and Means and Author of the Wilson Tariff Bill.

Born in Jefferson co, Va., May 3, 1843; graduated from University of Virginia in 1860; served in the Confederate army; for several years Professor in Columbian College; resigned and entered practice of law at Charlestown, W. Va.; elected President of West Virginia University in 1882; elected to 49th, 50th, 51st, 52d and 53d Congresses; in latter Congress served as Chairman of Committee on Ways and Means; father of the Wilson Tariff Bill; nominated by President Cleveland as Postmaster-General, February 28, 1895, and took oath of office, April 4, 1895.