Conservative ;
PROTECTION FOR INFANT INDUS
TRIES OUTGROWN.
Among the protected industries , some
can never meet foreign competition
without protection , in which case it is
an economic loss to prosecute them ; and
others will soon reach the point where
they can stand alone. In the mean
time , while the tariff lasts , it is neces
sarily a burden on the body of the con
sumers. As it is certain that no ex
change of goods is made unless both
parties are beuefitted by the transac
tion , so it is also clear that a tariff
which checks trade , harms the consum
ers of both countries. The benefits of
fostering infant industries can only be
attained if the industries soon cease to
need protection. The original protec
tionists in this country wished to give
manufacturers a fair chance to compete
with business of long standing in other
countries. Their interference with the
benefits of international trade was not
intended to outlive its usefulness. They
did not entertain the absurd idea that a
tariff could create a permanent balance
of trade in our favor , or that a money
excess of exports over imports was
going to make us richer. They knew
that what we wanted was to exchange
our goods for what foreigners could
make cheaper ; but , also knowing that a
diversified industry was advantageous ,
they believed that the American public
would be willing to undergo a tempo
rary sacrifice until the untried resources
of the country ' were developed.
Whether , in an over-progressive coun
try like this , these infant industries
would not have had a little slower , but
a far more healthy growth , unaided ,
those only surviving in the struggle
with foreign competition , for which the
conditions were favorable , is a perti
nent question , but one which we need
not discuss.
What , then , is the situation now ?
Simply that these "infant" industries ,
protected from foreign competition at
the. expense of "our own citizens , have
long since ceased to need protection. It
may well be asked , "When does an iu-
dustrycease to bo an'infant' industry ? "
When , indeed ! Is an industry that
supports one corporation , having a capital -
ital stock of $1,250,000,000 , an infant
industry ? Is any trust or monopoly an
infant industry ? Can any industry
claim protection , as an infant industry ,
after several years of experiment ? If
i 1 it is unsuccessful , it is an economic loss
I
; to prosecute it ; and , if successful , it
{ becomes an undue bounty to the man
ufacturer at the expense of the con
sumers. The early protectionists of
j new industries in this country would
j bo surprised to see how some of these
"infant" industries haye developed ;
and they might well believe the time
had come , when the American public
need no longer be called upon to make
sacrifices for American manufactu-
rers. There are those who believe that
the discussion of the tariff is no longer
vital : the tariff has built up American
industries , they say , so why not let it
stay ? Such people cannot understand
the mutual benefits of international
trade , and they do not see that our ex
ports must always be dependent on our
imports. They do not see that what
wo trade for , is not the money of other
countries , but the ' goods which they
can make cheaper than we can. They
do not seem to realize that tariffs on
our part , will lead to counter-tariffs
from countries , whose custom we have
begun to find valuable to our indus
tries , and they forget that , by limiting
the field of production to one country ,
they increase the tendency to fluctua
tions in prices , with its consequent
overproduction , followed by panics and
failures ; and , finally , they fail to real
ize that the tariff is a tax on the whole
body of the people , for the benefit of
the manufacturers in the protected in
dustries.
If this were all , it would'be clear that
the object for which a protective tariff
had been originated , had been attained ,
and that its continuation was undesir
able. But the recent tendency of in
dustry toward combination has put a
new face on the matter. As long as
there are individual firms in the same
protected industry , the price of the pro
duct is somewhat cut down by competi
tion ; but , the more the industries be
come controlled by pools and trusts , the
greater is the danger that the prices
may be raised by the full amount of
the duty. For a year or more , actual
cases have come to public notice , in
which American protected "infant" in
dustries have sustained prices in this
country , while at the same time they
were successful competitors in foreign
markets , where lower prices were
quoted. Indeed , American shipbuilders
ers complain that the one supreme rea
son why it is not possible for them to
build a merchant marine , to rival Eng
land's , is because American trusts have
been selling ship-plates cheaper in Eng
land , than here on the Atlantic sea
board. Would not the nation be better
off if it had a shipping industry , and
if , in consequence , Mr. Carnegie had
been able to amass a fortune of only
$150,000,000 , instead of $800,000,000 ? A
change in the tariff is what the ship
builders need not a government sub
sidy.
Our infant industries , made up of in
dividual , .struggling manufacturers ,
competing with each other , and at a
disadvantage , compared to foreign
rivals , for even the home market , have
grown to be all powerful trusts , mak
ing prices to suit themselves , and often
maintaining , by virtue of the tariff , a
higher price in this country than they
can sell , at a profit , the same goods de
livered in a foreign country. Is it not
preposterous to ask the consumer still
to make sacrifices for such over-fed "in
fants' ' ? The only check - to a monopo
listic trust , is foreign competition , and
this is destroyed by a tariff duty. .
Surely , the conditions have changed.
From now on , the American consumer
needs protection against the greed and
the power of the great industries of his
own country. Is it right that we should
rob ourselves of the benefits which we
might have from our own natural ad
vantages , our own business sagacity
and ingenuity , our own skilled labor ,
and our own ready capital , and that
with all these aids to industry , we
should not be able to exchange freely
for the produce of other countries ?
Protection to infant industries has pre
vailed long enough. Let us cry , "No
protection to trusts , " till congress
comes to the relief of the people.
ARTHUR SCOTT GILMAN.
Cambridge , Mass. , April 39 , 1901.
CHILE AT THE PAN-AMERICAN.
Senor Julio Perez Canto , Official
Commissioner of Chile to the Pan-
America ) ! Exposition , is in Buffalo to
remain throughout the Exposition.
The Chilean Commissioner for two
years has been the representative of his
country as Consul-General to the Central
American Republics. Four years ago
he was Chilean representative at the
Central American Exposition at Guate
mala. His work has thus given him a
wide knowledge of the development of
his country's resources , in which he is.
deeply interested.
He comes to Buffalo from Washing
ton , where he has been consulting with
the Chilean minister , concerning Expo
sition plans , which he is here to carry
out.
out.Chile
Chile has outdone all her previous
efforts in her appropriation for the
Pan-American , the amount being $170-
000 gold. The Chilean building is a
two-story rectangular structure of glass
and steel , and is 160 by 150 feet , and
88 feet high. The cost of this building
is about $28,000 gold. It is so construct
ed that at the close of the Exposition'it
can be taken to pieces , transported to
Chili and there reconstructed.
There are ten or twelve other com
missioners , besides Senor Canto , all ex
perts or specialists , in some particular
line , which the government of Chile is
to exploit , and of which they are to
take charge at the Exposition.
Senor Canto has charge of no special
feature of the exhibit , but will repre
sent his government in on official capac
ity in conjunction with the minister.
Besides presenting the products and
industries of Chile , the commissioners
will study conditions in this country ,
with a view to mutually increasing the
value of political relations. In doing