Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

cannot be explained on the ground of accidental coincidence. Extreme tariff revisionists concede that protection in the past has been highly instrumental in prospering the nation. The country is still in its industrial infancy. Its population is one-eighth of that which could comfortably subsist upon the soil. Having worn well in the incipient stages, it is folly to discard the principle now, on the threshold of the crucial middle stages.

II. Protection is needed to foster feeble industries and to equalize the difference in cost of production here and abroad.

While many big industries have outgrown their infancy and could now probably prosper with little or no protection, other industrial infants have since been born and will in future be born. History repeats itself in industry. The time will never come when our expansion will cease and we will have no young businesses to foster.

The cost of production in at least a clear majority of protected industries is higher than abroad. It follows that tariff is needed to equalize the difference and protect American capital and labor. Otherwise they cannot compete on even terms. Raw materials are cheaper abroad; the American manufacturer is not unduly handicapped, because he is entitled to a drawback when he manufactures for export. Transportation is a common factor. Labor cost throws the balance heavily in favor of Europe. Wages are so much higher here that the difference cannot be explained away on the ground of better system, higher efficiency or more general use of labor-saving machinery. We have no monopoly on these devices; Europe is daily copying them and crawling up on us.

Protection has raised and maintained the standard of living of American labor. It will always be needed unless we are content to lower the standard and reduce our laborers to the level of the pauper working classes of Europe and Asia.

III. Protection is a necessary integer in our fiscal and diplomatic policy.

Even with our present tariff, we have an annual deficit of $150,000,000 per year. This would be measurably increased by any wholesale revision, unless we concentrated our taxes on a few non-competitive articles and made the rates excessive. This the affirmative would hardly dare

to maintain. A century and a quarter of experience has shown that the best way to finance the government is by indirect rather than by direct taxes.

Protection, instead of hindering foreign markets, gives us a basis upon which to expand them. While affording ample protection against ruinous competition from parallel products, it admits of infinite reciprocity treaties covering articles specially needed here, whenever the need for reciprocal exchange is clear. Without a tariff to start with, America, in attempting to deal with other nations, would have nothing to offer, and hence could get nothing in return. Tariff affords a safety-valve on the home market for the relief of over-production; free trade removes all precautionary measures.

IV. The gradual abandonment of the protective tariff would spell industrial demoralization and ruin.

Many business men have testified that if protection were removed, they would go out of business or move their plants abroad. When wool tariff was lowered in 1894, it practically killed sheep-raising in America. The home market, while well taken care of now, would be flooded with cheap foreign products. The close interrelation of our banking, manufacturing and commercial interests would indicate that ruin for one class would mean ruin for all. While there is some demand for immediate revision of certain schedules, there is substantially no demand for ultimate abandonment of the principle of protection. Even the Democratic national platform is less insistent now than it used to be. Protection is universally accepted as our settled policy. This does not mean that we should not correct the abuses of protection. But they can be cured without discarding the system.

[The negative brief is naturally somewhat shorter than that of the affirmative. A larger part of the negative's time in both rounds must necessarily be occupied with rebuttal.]

TEAMS.

Pennsylvania-affirmative: Gustave H. Baur, 'IOL; Arthur J. Culler, B. G.; Frank A. Paul, 'IOL, captain; Everett Kent, 'IIL, alternate. Negative: Charles A. Drefs, '10C; Samuel Rosenbaum, '10C; Dale H. Parke, '09L, captain; Isadore E. Sauder, 'o9L, alternate.

BOOKS.

Franklin Pierce-"The Tariff and the Trusts."
George Baden-Powell-"Protection and Hard Times."
Ashley-"Modern Tariff History."

O. F. Bastable-"Theory of International Trade."
R. A. Benedict-"Tim, Tam, Tom and the First Tariff
Question."

T. N. Carver-"Theoretical Possibilities of a Protective Tariff."

S. J. Chapman-"History of Trade Between United Kingdom and United States."

F. H. Dudley-“England and United States under Free Trade and Protection.".

Henry George-"Protection or Free Trade."
Richard T. Ely-"Problems of To-day."

A. B. Farquhar-"Discussion of the Case for Protection."

J. D. Gross "History of Tariff Administration in the United States."

R. Hawley "Essay on Free Trade."

William Hill-"First Stages of Tariff Policy of U. S." William McKinley-"Review of Tariff Legislation, 1812-1896."

J. S. Moore "Friendly Sermons to Protectionist U. S. Manufacturers."

H. V. Poor-"Tariff: Its Bearing on Industries and Politics."

U. Rabbeno-"American Commercial Policy."

E. H. Roberts-"Governmental Revenue."

J. Schoenhof-"Destructive Influence of Tariff on Manufacturers;" "Economy of High Wages."

G. A. Smith-"Free Trade Movement and Its Results." E. Stanwood-"American Tariff Controversies in 19th Century."

F. W. Taussig-"History of the Tariff;" "State Papers and Speeches on Tariff."

S. N. Patten-"Economic Basis of Protection."

U. S. Cong. Tariff Hearings, 1897.

J. P. Young-"Protection and Progress."

OTHER REFERENCES.

"Annals of American Academy of Pol. and Soc. Science." Vol. 32. Sept., 1908. (Devoted entirely to tariff.)

"Outlook"-V. 89, p. 961,-v. 88, p. 338,-v. 87, p. 803. "Nation"-V. 87, p. 351, 130, 176, 329, 227-v. 85, p. 556, 515-v. 86, p. 548.

"Campaign Speeches"-James G. Blaine, 1888.
"Literary Digest"-Nov. 28, 1908.
"Edinborough Review"-Oct., 1908.

"North American Review"-Sept., 1908-v. 187, p. 34. "Current Literature"-V. 44, p. 594, 472.

"Review of Reviews"-V. 37, P. 99. "Harper's Weekly"-V. 52, p. 28.

"Westminster"-V. 170, p. 361—v. 169, p. 487—v. 170,

P. 22.

"Independent"—V. 65, p. 105.

"Atlantic"-V. 101, p. 334.

"World's Work"-V. 15, p. 972.

"Congressional Record"-53d Cong., 2d session-Jan.Aug., 1894.

"Republican and Democratic Textbooks," 1900-1908.

Happiness

To make it Take a hall, dim lit;

A pair of stairs where two may sit;
Of music soft, a bar or so;

Two spoons of-just two spoons, you know;
Of little pats, one or two,

Or one squeezed hand instead will do;
A waist-the size to be embraced;
And two ripe lips, rose-red-to taste;
And if the lips are soft and sweet,
You'll find your happiness complete.

Who Got Skinned?

BY MARGARET G. HAYS.

Nursy put a beau'ful pair o' new gloves
On my fat little hands to-day;
But, you know, they sort o' scare me,
'Cause I heard my nursy say,
"Those gloves is very 'spensive ones;
White knitted ones would do;
But those is made o' real kidskin."
Oh, dear! I wonder who-

Cause of'en when big Uncle Bob
Comes out wif' us to stay,
He kisses mother; 'en he says,
"How are the kids to-day?"

Now, who you s'pose he means by "kids?"
Why, Bruvver Ted an' me!

I wonder who on earf' got skinned
To make these gloves for me?

Father Time

BY E. K. Z.

You can bribe a legislator
Often with your money slime,
But you're up against it proper

When you tackle Father Time.

When you start out hunting rebates, You'll find railroads cocked and prime; But I'd like to see the offer

That you'd get from Father Time.

While the world receives the money

Tainted with your deeds of crime,

Stack it up and see how useless

It would be to Father Time.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »