"In view of the comparatively small and constantly decreasing part of our laboring population that could be affected even by a repeal of all duties, a movement for the imposition of higher duties upon imported goods cannot be regarded as justifiable upon any of the grounds usually urged in support of such measures by the advocates of the protective theory. "The cost of production in all the great manufacturing nations has been so nearly equalized by modern inventions and economies, that movements of their several products from one to another cannot take place upon a large scale, or for any considerable length of time, if these products are burdened in the markets to which they are sent with charges to which they are not subjected in the countries of their origin; and this tendency toward equalization of cost is still going on and must continue. A very small tax or charge will now entirely prevent the importation of many articles which a few years ago constituted a large proportion of our total dutiable merchandise and contributed very materially to our public revenues. "Of all the great manufacturing nations, ours is the only one which annually produces a surplus of food and raw materials, and, unless we fail to utilize our resources, we must become the great exporting country of the world. No very considerable part of our natural material can be much longer profitably carried to other countries and returned to us in the form of manufactures, but it will be converted into the finished product by our people in their own shops and factories, and, after supplying the home demand, the surplus will go abroad, to compete successfully with like products of other peoples not so favorably situated. This is the result toward which we have been rapidly advancing since 1892, and, unless our progress is seriously checked by unusual adverse influences, the time can not be very far distant when the importation of manufactured products as one of the sources of revenue must be substantially excluded from our estimates." The Minority Report of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives on March 27, 1897, expressed the same views in a very clear and concise manner in the following extract: "The labor argument of the protectionist can be reduced to an absurdity which makes it amazing that it should ever have been seriously advanced. To say in one breath that the welfare of labor depends upon its wages and that its wages in turn depends upon its skill and intelligence, and in the next breath to say that the very intelligent and highly skilled laborers of this country cannot successfully compete with the ignorant and unskilled laborers of the Old World, is equivalent to saying that skill and intelligence are not of great advantage to the laborers who possess them. To our minds, it involves a contradiction in history, as well as in economic theory, to hold that the factory labor of a civilized country needs protection against the factory labor of an uncivilized country. The fact that the unskilled laborers of a half-civilized country live more cheaply than the skilled laborers of a highly civilized country is more than counterbalanced by the greater productiveness of the skilled and intelligent laborer. If this view of the question needed further support than the mere statement of it, it can be found in those excellent works which assert that the skill and intelligence of the American laborer are such that he is able to produce seven times as much as the less skilful and less intelligent laborer of Continental Europe and fifteen times as much as the ignorant and unskilled laborers of Asia. Surely it will be admitted that a productive capacity seven times as great as the one and fifteen times as great as the other should be all that the American laborer needs to protect himself against the competition of European drudges and Asiatic serfs." THE SILVER STANDARD IN MEXICO. INTRODUCTION. I published in the North American Review for June, 1895, a paper entitled "The Silver Standard in Mexico," which I now insert here. In the preceding papers I have followed the system of revising them carefully and adding to them all the incidents on the same subject which had taken place after each was written, answering such objections as have since come to my knowledge and were not considered in the original article. I have embodied all these additions in the revised paper and preceded it by a short introduction, stating only how it originated and what were the reasons which induced me to write it. In the case of the "Silver Standard," however, I have thought it more prudent not to alter what I originally wrote and published in the North American Review, because that paper had the sanction of the then Secretary of State of the United States. I furthermore determined to embrace in the form of an introduction, such incidents connected with the silver standard in Mexico as have occurred since the paper was originally printed, as well as my answers to such objections or misstatements as have since come to my knowledge. The foregoing explains why this introduction is more lengthy than those preceding the other papers, having the anomaly of being longer than the paper itself, and also why I had in a few cases to speak more fully of incidents which had already been discussed in the original paper, making unavoidable repetitions, as in the cases of the reasons why we have adopted the silver standard, of our difficulties in the way of changing it for the gold standard, and of one or two other subjects. I will now state the manner in which my article on this subject originated. Senator Morgan's Request for Information.-On March 22, 1895, Senator John T. Morgan of Alabama, wrote me the following letter: "United States Senate, March 22, 1895. “His Excellency, Matias Romero, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. ROMERO:-So much has been said recently about the growth of Mexico, in prosperity, as it concerns the industries of your people and their freedom from embarrassment of domestic indebtedness, that I wish to ask whether this matter is real, or whether it is overstated. I know that your agriculture, manufacture, and mining must be your chief reliance for prosperity, since you have not the advantages of a great commerce or the profits of an economic carrying-trade; so I conclude that if your people are prosperous and free from the burdens of a heavy domestic indebtedness it must be the result of your domestic policy, relating to finance, taxation, or the economy of public administration. Yet I see that the rate of exchange between Mexico and the United States and the European countries is very heavy, to the apparent disadvantage of Mexico. I am also aware that you must use a heavy percentage of manufactures, consumed in Mexico, from other countries. "I suppose it is true, also, that very large sums of gold coin are sent abroad annually to pay the interest of your national debt and your railroad securities and other bonded indebtedness, guaranteed or otherwise. "The like demands upon our resources produce depression and stagnation of business in the United States, and the question I would present to your attention is whether the same causes, operating in Mexico, produce the same results. And, if they do not disturb or destroy the prosperity of your people, what is the cause of the difference in these results? I will very highly appreciate the answers you may be able to give to these suggestions, knowing that that they will be sincere, and that they will come from an able and enlightened source. It has been my habit during my official residence in this country to refrain from writing, or even saying, anything that might be construed as the expression of an opinion on any political question being agitated in this country, and more especially on issues which assume great importance in the heated canvass that precedes Presidential elections. For this reason, when Senator Morgan, an earnest friend of silver, addressed to me the letter just inserted, I hesitated very much about answering it, because I knew that he intended to use my answer in his campaign in Alabama in favor of the free coinage of silver, and although he only asked for facts-and nobody could possibly object to my giving facts regarding the actual condition of things in Mexico, as the result of our silver standard-I was afraid that my answer might be construed as an attempt on my part to interfere in the political questions of this country, and I desire to be entirely free from such imputations. But, at the same time, as Senator Morgan was a prominent member of the Senate, and was at the time the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in that branch of the legislative power, and, besides, was and has been for many years a warm personal friend of mine and a sincere friend to Mexico, and has obliged me in different ways, I was very reluctant to leave his letter unanswered, or even to give him verbally the information that he desired. To satisfy my mind, however, I decided to consult Judge Gresham, then the Secretary of State of the United States, as to whether it would be proper for me to answer in writing Senator Morgan's letter, and whether my answer |