Both terms, "free trade" and "protection," are unfortunate, for both have two or more meanings. "Free trade" is not absolute free trade, and "protection" does not protect, in the sense in which the term is misleadingly used by protectionists. "Free trade" means only so much free trade as is consistent with the admitted necessity of raising revenue through customs duties. "Protection" protects only the pocket of the manufacturer, not that of the workman, nor of the consumer. The first term is used incorrectly by protectionists to cast discredit on free trade in its meaning as used by its adherents (a tariff for revenue only), while the second term is used in a sense that throws a false glamour over it. There is no political party in this country seeking absolute free trade the abolition of all duties, with consequent abolition of our custom houses. But the country is awakening to the fact that protection, as now carried out, results in prize money, a plundering of the many for the benefit of the few. Instead of "a more equitable division of the prize money" that Mr. Roosevelt calls for, let us slowly, gradually, efficiently, modify and finally abolish or reduce to its lowest terms, the abominable system.

Free trade is in harmony with the spirit of progress of our people and our age, while protection is directly opposed to it. We are steadily progressing in the direction of freedom in many different ways: freedom of the person, and this has resulted in the

abolition of slavery; freedom of opinion; freedom of the press; freedom of the state from any church, and of all churches from the state; freedom of travel, with the right of expatriation, freedom to choose one's country. It is strange that a great American political party, accepting the moral principle of personal freedom, or liberty, and the abolition of slavery, should have gradually fallen a victim to the wiles of the economic slavery of protection, the negation of freedom of trade. The spirit of free trade is the spirit of peace and good-will to all on earth; the spirit of the golden rule, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us-that cardinal principle and the real essence of Christianity. In a notable sermon a leading divine has said that no one can be both a protectionist and a Christian, for protection is the denial of the golden rule. When protectionism recognizes the principle, as it does, that the government may take a part of one man's industry, through taxation, to enable another man to carry on a business he could not otherwise carry on, it is engaged in socialism of the worst type.

CHAPTER II

COMMERCE

COMMERCE IS EXCHANGE WITH BENEFIT TO BOTH

PARTIES

ET us begin with some of the elementary principles of commerce. Take the case of two boys, A. and B., who swap jackknives. A. wants to swap because B.'s knife has a large blade that he, A., wants for some particular purpose. B. wants to swap because A.'s knife has a small blade that he, B., wants for some particular purpose. They swap, and both gain by the transaction. Here you have an epitome of all commerce. It is trade, barter, exchange of something for something, with benefit to both parties to the transaction. If money enters into it the result is the same, whether they are in one state or are separated by a state line. Now, let us suppose that A. stands in Maine and B. stands in Canada and the swap above described takes place across the imaginary line constituting the boundary line between Maine and Canada. Do the two boys cease to gain something by their exchange of jackknives? The free trader (meaning always one who believes in a tariff for revenue only) answers that it makes no difference whether both boys are in the same state

or in different states; that what is true of this trade between two boys would be equally true of trade or commerce between ten, a thousand, or a million men trading with each other; whether all were in Maine or all in Canada; whether some were in Maine and others in other states of the Union, or in any other part of the world; or whether all were on the earth or some up in the air in balloons or aeroplanes and some in mines in the bowels of the earth.

A CASE OF BARTER

Suppose A. wants B.'s knife so much that he offers B. something to boot, say, a top. Is the exchange any the less advantageous to both? A. would not make the offer did he not think so. B. would not accept it did he not also think it would result in advantage to him also. We trust them and all others to make their own trade or to learn to trade differently the next time. Again this is but an epitome of commerce. What is true of these two boys is true of all mankind. They engage in commerce because it is mutually profitable. Were it not, commerce would stop.

Suppose that, instead of giving a top to boot, A. gives a cent besides his knife in exchange for B.'s knife. Or suppose, foreseeing he may some time need his knife again, A. keeps it and pays B. two cents for B.'s knife. Does that make any difference?

In all these cases, whether it be boys swapping jackknives by barter or by purchase and sale for money, or a multitude of men engaged in commercial transactions with each other, the answer of the free trader is the same: Let them alone; let them make their own bargains. We omit here the necessity that governments are under of raising a revenue, to consider it later on.

Free trade between the inhabitants of different States benefits them all. It makes no difference whether these states are states of a union or whether they are states that are not united; whether they are States spelled with a capital S or states spelled with a small s; whether they are contiguous states or states that are as far apart as the poles.

Protectionists deny this; they claim that, while the inhabitants of the same state or union of states may safely be left to trade with each other as they please, they must not be allowed to do so if they are at opposite sides of the boundary line between two states, except under state regulation. They assign at least two reasons for this difference. They are important and will be considered in detail later; at present I shall only state them:

1. Because the inhabitants of one country will grow richer and those of the other country will grow poorer.

Therefore, the state must interfere and tax the commerce of these people with each other. This