fostering class-interests can be raised into a principle which shall fall into accord with free government. The antagonism between the two is inherent. The theory, therefore, of protection is false, and does not in any way fit the quality of true liberty; nor can it be made to fit it. It is thus that the typical American freeman may be expected to view the subject.

It is quite likely that no argument which looks to ultimate ends will have much influence on minds that are bent on immediate physical results. Most men are ready to sacrifice remote for temporary advantages. Nevertheless, when we consider the ultimate basis of human freedom, it is necessary that we should look as far into the future as possible.

There is a considerable class who favor tariff reform, and yet condemn free trade as theoretical and utopian. But between this class of reformers and the protectionists themselves it is not a question whether real political liberty shall prevail, but what degree of inequality may be allowed to exist and continue from motives of temporary expediency.

Another class of reformers who express faith in the ultimate freedom of trade, assume that in existing conditions it is imprudent even to advocate such reform. But it seems to me that there can be no political or industrial conditions in which the underlying principles should not be studied with a view to their final establishment, and with a view of creating a present basis of adjustment.

There is still another class, composed mainly of politicians, who indulge in the pretence that in tariff reform the stimulated interests which have grown up will not be seriously affected by a return to freedom of trade. This class have only adopted one of the methods of the protectionists-that of prophesying pleasant things; but for my part, I have no faith in the power of pretence in the discussion of economic science. Transition from a wrong policy to a right one will involve inevitable disturbance, proportioned to the extent of the structures which have grown up under the wrong policy. The owners of the protected interests have learned to lean upon the support which they have received. Some of their interests possess abnormal vitality through this assistance, and, of course, the first effect of removal will be severely felt. The props upon which they exist being taken away, not only will their industries themselves be interrupted, but collateral dependencies will be disturbed. The most, therefore, that the honest reformer can promise to the protectionist is that the reform may be made upon the line of safe change, so as to afford to the protectionist a reasonable time for the transfer of his reliance upon artificial privileges to self-dependence, with the assurance that after the transfer is effected and his industries adjusted to that transfer, they will exist in the natural order of things for cheapening the product to the consumer and creating an enlargement of his market to the world.

As I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, my purpose in discussing the subject of protection is not so much to deal with any of the immediate details, as to indicate that foundation upon which reform should rest. Whilst it may be, as I have heretofore said with reference to the railway problem, a question of policy as to how this reform shall be begun and accomplished, it cannot be a question of policy as to whether we shall return to those conditions contemplated by the Constitution. Just how the reform shall be begun, at what rate it shall progress, what degree of consideration should be shown to existing protected structures, are questions of political policy; but the questions whether it shall be begun, and what shall be its ultimate aims, are questions of political and industrial liberty.

However far we have drifted from the law of equal right, we are not beyond retracing our steps, although it is doubtless the case that the very distance which we have travelled is one of the causes which will prevent us from realizing the extent of the departure until the penalties of that departure begin to be seriously felt. The evils have grown insidiously. Their supporters have organized them and fortified their growth. They aim to give to a public discussion of the subject that indefiniteness which tends to impart to it a degree of haziness. They have succeeded in selecting the field for contest. They deal with statistics of growth-immediate results.

can turn our attention from these immediate results to the principles which lie beneath them we will find these principles neither complex nor difficult to comprehend. So far as the conditions are concerned, which lie between us and the goal to which we should direct our steps, there are the barriers of vast pecuniary accumulation, of false reasoning, and legislative enactments to support it, and even, it may be said, of an organic law in which the ultimate conception of industrial liberty is not fully defined.

The first question, therefore, which we have to ask ourselves is: Is the support of a special private interest, through exaction from the general taxpayer, within the province and power of a republican government? If we answer this question in the negative, there remains only the consideration of the policy to be pursued as to the rate at which the withdrawal of that power shall take place.

It is not within the scope of this work to attempt any discussion of the complicated question involving the principles of taxation; I will therefore only briefly refer to this subject in its relation to the tariff. The science of taxation was not extensively studied in the discussions which preceded and followed the formation of the Constitution. The condition of the nation was not then conducive to such a study. The Revolutionary War seemed to make any means justifiable for raising revenues, and the

system by which they were to be raised did not therefore challenge great examination.1

The present method of indirect taxation is so deeply imbedded in our system of government, and is so strongly supported by a sense of convenience, that in all probability it will not soon be eradicated. It is impossible, however, to consider the evil consequences resulting from protection, without regarding the indirect method of raising revenue as in a large measure a promoter of these consequences. The subject of taxation is one which is exceedingly difficult to deal with, for, as Washington said in his Farewell Address, "No taxes could be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant." It must be confessed that on the score of convenience, leaving out ultimate consequences, the indirect tax is the less unpleasant of the two. Whatever inconvenience or unpleasantness there may be about the direct system of taxation, however, it is hardly possible that with it there could have existed the degree of protection which has prevailed since the war. No promise of indirect and indefinite benefits to the community at large would have induced a general acquiescence in the exactions which have been made by the government for the stimulation of the protected industries. Whilst these exactions do not ap

1Indirect taxation is referred to only twice in the Federalist, and then by Hamilton (Nos. 21 and 34). In the debates on the framing of the Constitution, contained in the Madison Papers, Wilson appears to have been the only one who gave the subject any attention at all. (Vol. I., pp. 282 and 386.) All that was said concerning it was in its favor, founded upon its convenience. Jefferson while President of the United States favors it for this reason. (See Jefferson's Works, vol. III., pp. 261, 461.)