Instant Download Computing Essentials Intro 2014 24th Edition Oleary Solutions Manual PDF Full Chapter
Instant Download Computing Essentials Intro 2014 24th Edition Oleary Solutions Manual PDF Full Chapter
Instant Download Computing Essentials Intro 2014 24th Edition Oleary Solutions Manual PDF Full Chapter
If we had been under the banner of free trade in 1873, when the
widespread financial storm struck our sails, what would have been
our fate? Is it not apparent that our people would have been stranded
on a lee shore, and that the general over-production and excess of
unsold merchandise everywhere abroad would have come without
hindrance, with the swiftness of the winds, to find a market here at
any price? As it was the gloom and suffering here were very great,
but American workingmen found some shelter in their home
markets, and their recovery from the shock was much earlier assured
than that of those who in addition to their own calamities had also to
bear the pressure of the hard times of other nations.
In six years, ending June 30, 1881, our exports of merchandise
exceeded imports by over $1,175,000,000—a large sum in itself,
largely increasing our stock of gold, filling the pockets of the people
with more than two hundred and fifty millions not found in the
Treasury or banks, making the return to specie payments easy, and
arresting the painful drain of interest so long paid abroad. It is also a
very conclusive refutation of the wild free-trade chimeras that
exports are dependent upon imports, and that comparatively high
duties are invariably less productive of revenue than low duties. The
pertinent question arises, Shall we not in the main hold fast to the
blessings we have? As Americans we must reject free trade. To use
some words of Burke upon another subject: “If it be a panacea we do
not want it. We know the consequences of unnecessary physic. If it
be a plague, it is such a plague that the precautions of the most
severe quarantine ought to be established against it.”
COMMERCIAL PROTECTION.
The sum of our annual support bestowed upon the Navy, like that
upon the Army, may be too close-fisted and disproportionate to our
extended ocean boundaries, and to the value of American commerce
afloat; yet whatever has been granted has been designed almost
exclusively for the protection of our foreign commerce, and amounts
in the aggregate to untold millions. Manufacturers do not complain
that this is a needless and excessive favor to importers; and why,
then, should importers object to some protection to a much larger
amount of capital, and to far greater numbers embarked certainly in
an equally laudable enterprise at home?
THE THEORY.
But English free trade does not mean free trade in such articles as
the poor require and must have, like tea and coffee, nor in tobacco,
wines and spirituous liquors. These articles they reserve for
merciless exactions, all specific, yielding a hundred millions of
revenue, and at three times the rate we levy on spirits and more than
five times the rate we levy on tobacco! This is the sly part of the
entertainment to which we are invited by free-traders.
In 1880 Great Britain, upon tobacco and cigars, mainly from the
United States, valued at $6,586,520, collected $43,955,670 duties, or
nearly two-thirds as much as we collect from our entire importations
of merchandise from Great Britain.
After all, is it not rather conspicuous hypocrisy for England to
disclaim all protection, so long as she imposes twenty-nine cents per
pound more upon manufactured tobacco than upon
unmanufactured, and double the rate upon manufactured cocoa of
that upon the raw? American locomotives are supposed to have great
merit, and the foreign demand for them is not unknown, but the use
of any save English locomotives upon English railroads is prohibited.
Is there any higher protection than prohibition? And have not her
sugar refiners lived upon the difference of the rates imposed upon
raw and refined sugars? On this side of the Atlantic such legislation
would be called protection.
· · · · ·
Queerly enough some of the parties referred to, denounce the tariff
men as but “half-educated,” while, perhaps, properly demanding
themselves exclusive copyright protection for all of their own literary
productions, whether ephemeral or abiding. It is right, they seem to
think, to protect brains—and of these they claim the monopoly—but
monstrous to protect muscles; right to protect the pen, but not the
hoe nor the hammer.
Free trade would almost seem to be an aristocratic disease from
which workingmen are exempt, and those that catch it are as proud
of it as they would be of the gout—another aristocratic distinction.
It might be more modest for these “nebulous professors” of
political economy to agree among themselves how to define and
locate the leading idea of their “dismal science” whether in the value
in exchange or value in use, in profits of capital or wages, whether in
the desire for wealth or aversion to labor, or in the creation,
accumulation, distribution and consumption of wealth, and whether
rent is the recompense for the work of nature or the consequence of a
monopoly of property, before they ask a doubting world to accept the
flickering and much disputed theory of free trade as an infallible
truth about which they have themselves never ceased to wrangle. The
weight of nations against it is as forty to one. It may be safe to say
that when sea-serpents, mermaids, and centaurs find a place in
natural history, free trade will obtain recognition as a science; but till
then it must go uncrowned, wearing no august title, and be content
with the thick-and-thin championship of the “Cobden Club.”
All of the principal British colonies from the rising to the setting of
the sun—India alone possibly excepted—are in open and successful
revolt against the application of the free-trade tyranny of their
mother country, and European States not only refuse to copy the
loudly-heralded example, but they are retreating from it as though it
were charged with dynamite. Even the London Times, the great
“thunderer” of public opinion in Great Britain, does not refrain from
giving a stunning blow to free trade when it indicates that it has
proved a blunder, and reminds the world that it predicted it would so
prove at the start. The ceremony of free trade, with only one party
responding solitary and alone, turns out as dull and disconsolate as
that of a wedding without a bride. The honeymoon of buying cheap
and selling dear appears indefinitely postponed.
There does not seem to be any party coming to rescue England
from her isolated predicament. Bismarck, while aiming to take care
of the interests of his own country, as do all ministers, on this
question perhaps represents the attitude of the greater part of the
far-sighted statesmen of Europe, and he, in one of his recent
parliamentary speeches, declared:
Without being a passionate protectionist, I am as a financier,
however, a passionate imposer of duties, from the conviction that the
taxes, the duties levied at the frontier, are almost exclusively borne
by the foreigner, especially for manufactured articles, and that they
have always an advantageous, retrospective, protectionist action.
Practically the nations of continental Europe acquiesce in this
opinion, and are a unit in their flat refusal of British free trade. They
prefer the example of America. Before self-confident men pronounce
the whole world of tariff men, at home and abroad, “half-educated or
half-witted,” they would do well to see to it that the stupidity is not
nearer home, or that they have not themselves cut adrift from the
logic of their own brains, only to be wofully imposed upon by free-
trade quackery, which treats man as a mere fact, no more important
than any other fact, and ranks labor only as a commodity to be
bought and sold in the cheapest or dearest markets.
So long as statesmen are expected to study the prosperity and
advancement of the people for whose government and guidance they
are made responsible, so long free-trade theories must be postponed
to that Utopian era when the health, strength and skill, capital and
labor of the whole human race shall be reduced or elevated to an
entire equality, and when each individual shall dwell in an equal
climate, upon an equal soil, freely pasture his herds and flocks where
he pleases, and love his neighbor better than himself.
OUR FARMERS.
The test of profitable farming is the state of the account at the end
of the year. Under free trade the evidence multiplies that the English
farmer comes to the end of the year with no surplus, often in debt,
bare and discontented. Their laborers rarely know the luxury of
meat, not over sixteen ounces per week,[87] and never expect to own a
rood of the soil.
But under the protective policy the American farmer holds and
cultivates his own land, has a surplus at the end of the year for
permanent investments or improvements, and educates and brings
up his sons and daughters with the advantages and comforts of good
society. There are more American houses with carpets than in any
other country of the world. I believe it will not be disputed that the
down-trodden tillers of the soil in Great Britain are not well fed; that
they are coarsely underclad, and that for lack of common-school
culture they would hardly be regarded as fit associates here for
Americans who drive their teams afield, or for the young men who
start in life as laborers upon farms. The claim that free trade is the
true policy of the American farmer would seem to be, therefore, a
very courageous falsehood.
It is an unfortunate tendency of the age that nearly one-half of the
population of the globe is concentrated in cities, often badly
governed, and sharply exposed to extravagance, pauperism,
immorality, and all the crimes and vices which overtake mankind
reared in hot-beds. I would neither undervalue the men of brilliant
parts, nor blot out the material splendor of cities, but regret to see
the rural districts depopulated for their unhealthy aggrandizement.
Free trade builds up a few of these custom-house cities, where gain
from foreign trade is the chief object sought, where mechanics,
greater in numbers than any other class, often hang their heads,
though Crœsus rolls in Pactolian wealth, and Shylock wins his pound
of flesh; but protection assembles artisans and skilled workmen in
tidy villages and towns, details many squadrons of industry to other
and distant localities, puts idle and playful waterfalls at work, opens,
builds up, and illumines, as with an electric light, the whole interior
of the country; and the farmer of Texas or of New England, of Iowa
or of Wisconsin, is benefited by such reinforcements of consumers,
whether they are by his side or across the river, at Atlanta or South
Bend, at Paterson or at Providence. The farmers own and occupy
more than nineteen-twentieths of our whole territory, and their
interest is in harmony with the even-handed growth and prosperity
of the whole country.
There is not a State whose interests would not be jeopardized by
free trade, and I should like to dwell upon the salient facts as to
Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Alabama, Illinois, and many other States,
but I shall only refer to one. The State of Texas, surpassing empires
in its vast domains, doubling its population within a decade, and
expending over twenty million dollars within a year in the
construction of additional railroads, with a promised expenditure
within the next fifteen months of over twenty-seven millions more,
has sent to market as raw material the past year 12,262,052 pounds
of hides, 20,671,639 pounds of wool, and 1,260,247 bales of cotton.
Her mineral resources, though known to be immense, are as yet
untouched. Her bullocks, in countless herds on their way to market,
annually crowd and crop the prairies from Denver to Chicago. But
now possessed of a liberal system of railroads, how long will the
dashing spirit of the Lone Star State—where precious memories still
survive of Austin, of Houston, of Rusk, and of Schleicher—be content
to send off unmanufactured her immense bulk of precious raw
materials, which should be doubled in value at home, and by the
same process largely multiply her population? With half as many in
number now as had the original thirteen, and soon to pass our
largest States, wanting indefinite quantities of future manufactures
at home, Texas should also prepare to supply the opening trade with
Mexico, in all of its magnitude and variety, and far more worthy of
ambition than in the golden days of Montezuma.
No State can run and maintain railroads unless the way-stations,
active and growing settlements and towns, are numerous enough to
offer a large, constant, and increasing support. The through business
of long lines of railroads is of great importance to the termini, and
gives the roads some prestige, but the prosperity and dividends
mainly accrue from the local business of thrifty towns on the line of
the roads. It is these, especially manufacturing towns, which make
freight both ways, to and from, that free trade must ever fail to do,
and while through freights, owing to inevitable competition, pay little
or no profit, the local freights sustain the roads, and are and must be
the basis of their chief future value. Without this efficient local
support, cheap and rapid long transportation would be wholly
impracticable.
The Southern States, in the production of cotton, have possibly
already reached the maximum quantity that can be cultivated with
greatest profit, unless the demand of the world expands. A short crop
now often brings producers a larger sum than a full crop. The
amount of the surplus sent abroad determines the price of the whole
crop. Production appears likely soon to outrun the demand. Texas
alone has latent power to overstock the world. Is it not time,
therefore, to curtail the crop, or to stop any large increase of it, while
sure to obtain as much or more for it, and to turn unfruitful capital
and labor into other and more profitable channels of industry? The
untrodden fields, where capital and labor wait to be organized for the
development of Southern manufactures and mining, offer unrivaled
temptations to leaders among men in search of legitimate wealth.
The same facts are almost equally applicable to general
agriculture, but more particularly to the great grain-growing regions
of the West. A great harvest frequently tends to render the labor of
the whole year almost profitless, whenever foreign countries are
blessed with comparatively an equal abundance. The export of corn
last year in October was 8,535,067 bushels, valued at $4,604,840,
but the export of only 4,974,661 bushels this year brings $3,605,813.
An equal difference appears in the increased value of exports of flour.
A much larger share of crops must be consumed nearer home, if any
sure and regular market is to be permanently secured. The foreign
demand, fitful and uncertain as it is, rarely exceeds one-twentieth of
even the present home requirements, and the losses from long
transportation, incident to products of great bulk, can never be
successfully avoided except by an adequate home demand.
Farmers do not look for a market for grain among farmers, but
solely among non-producing consumers, and these it is greatly to
their interest to multiply rather than to diminish by forcing them to
join in producing or doubling crops for which there may be an
insufficient demand. Every ship-load of wheat sent abroad tends to
bring down foreign prices; and such far-off markets should be sought
only when the surplus at home is excessive or when foreign prices
are extraordinarily remunerative.
The wheat regions of the West, superb as they undoubtedly are, it
is to be feared, have too little staying character to be prodigally
squandered, and their natural fertility noticeably vanishes in the rear
unless retained by costly fertilizers almost as rapidly as new fields
open in front. Some of the Middle States as well as the New England,
though seeking fertilizers far and near, already look to the West for
much of their corn and bread; and there is written all over Eastern
fields, as Western visitors may read, the old epitaph, “As we are now
so you may be.” It will take time for this threatened decadence, but
not long in the life of nations. The wheat crop runs away from the
Atlantic coast to the Pacific, and sinks in other localities as it looms
up in Minnesota, Nebraska, and Dakota. Six years of cropping in
California, it is said, reduces the yield per acre nearly one-half.
There was in 1880 devoted to wheat culture over thirty-five million
acres, or nearly double the acreage of 1875. In twenty-five years a
hundred million people will more than overtake any present or
prospective surplus, and we may yet need all of our present
magnificent wheat fields to give bread to our own people. Certainly
we need not be in haste to slaughter and utterly exhaust the native
fertility of our fields on the cheap terms now presented.
England, with all her faults, is great, but unfortunately has not
room to support her greatness, and must have cheap food and be
able to offer better wages or part with great numbers of her people. I
most sincerely hope her statesmen—and she is never without those
of eminence—will prove equal to their great trust and to any crisis;
but we cannot surrender the welfare of our Republic to any foreign
empire. Free trade may or may not be England’s necessity. Certainly
it is not our necessity; and it has not reached, and never will reach,
the altitude of a science. An impost on corn there, it is clear, would
now produce an exodus of her laboring population that would soon
leave the banner of Victoria waving over a second-rate power.
Among the nations of the world the high position of the United
States was never more universally and cordially admitted. Our rights
are everywhere promptly conceded, and we ask nothing more. It is
an age of industry, and we can only succeed by doing our best. Our
citizens under a protective tariff are exceptionally prosperous and
happy, and not strangers to noble deeds nor to private virtues. A
popular government based on universal suffrage will be best and
most certainly perpetuated by the elevation of laboring men through
the more liberal rewards of diversified employments, which give
scope to all grades of genius and intelligence and tend to secure to
posterity the blessings of universal education and the better hope of
personal independence.
Speech of Hon. J. D. Cameron, of Penna.