(Correspondence AMERICAN ECONOMIST.) WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 5.-The year closed with a magnificent showing of success by the revenue policy of the United States. After loudly asserting that the Protective Dingley Tariff would not furnish revenues, and being confronted by customs receipts for each month during the present fiscal year more than the estimated average of $500,000 a day, the Free-Traders have now taken a new tack. They are asserting that we cannot adjust the Protective policy to the expanded condition" of the United States; that Protection has outlived its usefulness and must give way to Free-Trade. The opponents of Protection are vainly seeking consolation in the figures as to United States exports to Canada. Not only in the customs receipts, and in the marked increase of our export trade during the past year of restored Protection, but in the last analysis of the Canadian trade, the Free-Traders may find room for reflection.

66

What will be the next claim of the opponents of Protection in their efforts to prove the "failure of the Dingley Tariff?" Surely they have made a dismal failure in their protestations that the new law would not furnish the desired revenues. Every month witnesses an increasing fund of revenue drawn to the Treasury by the operations of the Protective Tariff. Notwithstanding the

sweeping reductions in the volume of imports during the past six months, with the attendant advantages to the domestic producers, the receipts from customs revenues far exceeded those of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff period, for any corresponding months.

the

But what of the Canadian trade? Are the Free-Traders to find consolation in a study of the changes in our trade with that British province? There is excellent British authority for statement that notwithstanding the 25 per cent. preferential in favor of British manufacturers in the Canadian the markets the manufacturers of United States have largely increased their exports to the Dominion during the past year. On iron and steel products the admission is made by Canadian authority that even the 25 per cent. advantage will not avail to prevent the manufacturers of the United States controlling the Canadian market as against the iron and steel manufacturers of Great Britain.

It is well to note the fact that there has been an increase of about ten millions in the exports of the United States to Canada during the past four years, and five millions of that increase was in 1898. By dealing with percentages, the favorite method of the Free-Traders, it is easily shown that the greatest proportionate increases were on lines of commodities into which machinery methods entered to the greatest extent. Only slight increases are noted on meat products, and with the exception of wheat and corn, notable increases in exports of which were made in 1897 and last year, the general lines of goods and products into which hand labor largely enters, and on which there is little opportunity for machinery methods to reduce the cost of production, comparatively little advance was made by the exporters of the United States to the markets of Canada. But fourfold increases were made on exports of agricultural implements, two-fold increases on builders' hardware, and absolutely new markets were made on many other lines of manufactures from this country.

These are facts convincing to the Protectionists of this country, not that the "old policy of Protection has outlived its usefulness," but, on the contrary, that it is developing a line of manufacturing in this country that is destined to make its way in claiming the markets of the world, by reducing the cost of production by the employment of the best machinery methods, and, at the same time, maintaining the high wage standard of the employees of the mills and factories of the United States.

These facts have dawned upon the Canadian commissioners engaged in representing Canada and Great Britain

on the Joint High Commission that is striving to secure a treaty for closer reciprocal trade relations between this country and Canada. They are no longer pressing for reciprocity on lines of manufactures which would bring com peting products of the Canadian mills and factories into the markets of this country. They have been informed by Senators from the border States that a treaty making such concessions to the Canadians would not be ratified by the United States Senate. The work of the Commissioners has been directed durpast few ing the weeks almost to exclusively secure, if possible, concessions on agricultural products. This is resisted by the border States, whose people have investigated the history of the operations of the reciprocity treaty with Canada in 1854-66.

Under Protection this nation has developed into an exporting instead of an importing nation. The claim of the Free-Traders always has been that such result was utterly impossible under Protection. Their claim has been, "if we do not buy abroad we cannot sell abroad." We are daily buying less abroad and selling more abroad. Thus are the theories of the Free-Traders answered by the cold facts of practical experience. Can it be possible that the American people are to be humbugged by the theorists into an abandonment of the policy that has brought such marvelous results, such glorious achievements in industrial development, on the plea that the United States has outgrown Protection?

Given anything like equality in methods, with their cheaper labor cost, the British manufacturers would soon regain the ground they are losing. It never has taken very long for the British manufacturers to undermine American industries if given the opportunity for competing on the plane of equality. But under Protection for the industries of the United States we see here developed a high type of industrial operations capable of competing even in British markets on important lines of production.

Our Merchant Marine. The carrying trade of the United States now conducted by foreign sailors and credited to foreign bottoms is estimated at $1,600,000,000, and that credited to American bottoms at $190,000,000. In 1860 the trade of American bottoms was estimated at $507,247,757, and foreign bottoms at $225,040,793. but since then there has been a steady and uninterrupted decline of American bottoms and a corresponding increase of foreign bottoms. All of which demonstrates the soundness of the Republican policy to re-establish our merchant marine.-Allegheny (Pa.) "Record."

OUR COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION.

The Absolute Need of a Potent Shipping Policy and the Measures Essential for Its Constitution Considered and Explained.

XXIII.

Our Diplomatic Subordination, [Written for the AMERICAN ECONOMIST.] To yield is to submit; to submit is to become subordinate; to become subordinate is to generate a nerveless national courage. Such seem to be some of the sequences of the War of 1812, of the peace treaty and conventions following. England forced that war, that she might destroy our shipping power. We made our fight for "Free-Trade and sailor's rights" and our battles won merited better reward than failure to secure their object, and to lose our ship Protection besides. England got her desire shaped for accomplishment, not by whipping our armies, or by capturing our ships and seamen, but by bold and diplomatic fencing with our yielding and submissive government. Our shipping power being now reduced to zero, British statesmen patronize and flatter us. Our legislators are presented with a rattle; our press is given a straw. All at once commercial conventions become sacred things. Our flowing courage drips from our finger ends, and the prospect of shipping restoration melts away.

The Open Door of Marine Reciproc

ity.

When the peace treaty of 14 came to be considered the battle of Waterloo had been fought and Napoleon made a prisoner of war. Great Britain, flushed with victory, would not agree to any stipulation respecting the impressment of seamen, nor to any definition of neutral rights as to blockades, but insisted that the treaty should be followed by a commercial convention that should establish a policy of "maritime reciprocity "-an "open door" to freighting-under which the present state of our marine might be brought about. We had to treat with our enemy or fight him single-handed-so we treated. To enable the Executive to meet in "convention" our exacting friend, of the "firm and universal peace" just ratified, Congress passed the first act for stripping off our ship Protection, March 3, 1815, as follows:

That so much of the several acts imposing duties on the tonnage of ships and vessels, and on goods, wares, merchandise imported into the United States, as imposes a discriminating duty on tonnage between foreign vessels and vessels of the United States, and between goods imported into the United States in foreign vessels and sels of the United States, be, and the same are hereby repealed; such repeal to take effect in favor of foreign nations whenever the President of the United States shall be satisfied that the discriminating or counter

ves

vailing duties of such foreign nation, so far as they operate to the disadvantage of the United States, have been abolished.

Dust for the Public Eye. The assumption that any discriminating duties of foreign nations "operated to the disadvantage of the United was false and absurd. Besides, States" the British system of ship Protection consisted for the most part of prohibitions, as already shown. Several of these it was not expected they would give up, nor did they. We had no prohibitions, but were to give up all our system; the British only part of theirs. We have had historians whose account of our submission to fate veils the truth. The experience of twentysix years had proved that our discriminative duties were highly Protective, much more than offsetting those of other nations; and especially effective in securing to our vessels cargoes in foreign ports for carriage homeward. On this security of employment abroad rested the whole advantage of our ship Protection. This it that Great Britain wanted removed. Only the prohibitions of foreign nations obstructed our navigation. These the act of 1815 did not touch. The only gain from the Convention of July 3, 1815, at London, was the continuance of the peace provided for by the Treaty of December 24, 1814, at Ghent. That is to say, our ship Protection as against the British was cast away as the price of pacification. The convention" of 1815 provided as follows:

66

was

3

don, August 6, 1827, the time was "further indefinitely" extended by its first article "from the date of the ex" but piration of the said ten years; Article II. following reads thus:

It shall be competent, however, to either of the contracting parties, in case either should think fit, at any time after the said ten years-that is, after the 20th of October, 1828-on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party, to " and annul and abrogate this "Convention; it shall, in such case, be accordingly entirely annulled and abrogated, after the expiration of the said term of notice.

Thus the "convention" might have been annulled and abrogated by either party on the 20th of October, 1829, or at any time since, in conformity with its own provisions. It has been in force over sixty-nine years at least against the interest of the United States, and for the last thirty-seven years to the lingering sufferance of the country. Why should we longer submit to the winner of an unjust contest? If she insists we shall, are we to be her subordinate forever?

No Violation of Treaty Obligation, A wrong impression is abroad that a return to the early ship Protection of discriminating duties involves a violation of a treaty with Great Britain. There is nothing of the kind involved. Our agreement of July 3, 1815, was not a treaty in the proper sense, but a "convention" with a time limit fixed. This distinction is important. We have discharged every obligation to the full. It is our right under the convention itself to cease its observance. Noah Webster thus defines a convention:

5. An agreement or contract less formal than, or preliminary to, a treaty; an informal contract as between commanders of armies in respect to suspension of hostilities, or between States; also a formal agreebetween ment governments sovereign powers; as a postal convention between two governments.

or

Whether called a treaty or convention, we have no agrement for perpetual arrangements as to commerce and navigation with any nation whatsoever; but with all nations there is a time limit fixed, with annulment and abrogation provided for on one year's notice. If we submit forever to arrangements that have proved ruinous and degrading, we have only ourselves and our Government to blame.

The men of 1815-27 tided over a difficulty. We should have the manliness, with ten times the population, wealth and power, to resume our right and perform our duty. It was a remark of Jefferson, that "All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." This is all there is in the talk about "treaty" hindrance to the proper Protection of American shipping.