products remained undiminished when offered abroad in such greater quantities, and if also the exchangeable value of foreign cottons, woollens, and iron remained unenhanced when called for in such great quantities we should thereafter get the cottons and woollens and iron as much as we now get them, but the seven millions of people, supported directly and indirectly by the three industries, would be without means of support; they would then have, as Mr. Mill expresses it, either to go without food and necessaries, or squeeze them by competition from the shares of other laborers. But, to bring about even this result, we have had to suppose that the addition of seven hundred millions (to our present export of eight or nine hundred millions) would not depress the exchangeable value of the whole. If it did depress it, even fifteen per cent, then our cottons and woollens and iron would cost as much as now, and leave us our seven millions of unoccupied people besides; and, if the foreign iron and woollens and cottons advanced in exchangeable value, we should be worse off still. But it has been urged that the seven millions, or those who support the seven millions, would find occupation about "something else—" that they would build houses and wagons, &c.; but the effective demand of the community for houses and wagons, &c., will, by supposition, be diminished by the seven hundred millions sent abroad to buy cottons and woollens and iron before made at home; and, although houses and wagons" are never imported," their exchangeable value depends upon the effective demand. Let us now try again to imagine how salaried men would be affected by the suppression of the three industries in ques Evidently the educated men, now employed in and about those industries, would become competitors over and above those now competing for pulpits, professorships, seats upon the bench, and other dignified occupations yielding salaries. The X representing any particular salary must then, after a while, come to be a smaller proportion of the total annual product available for home consumption, as already observed; and this last being, by the supposition, reduced by the one tenth part sent abroad, the particular salary would soon come to be not only a diminished proportion of the previous annual product, but a diminished proportion of nine tenths of the previous product. In short, less being produced in the country, there would be less to divide between rent, profits, and wages. It is only a couple of weeks since I became aware that Professor Sumner had published in March the article now under review; and the present paper has been written in response to his request conveyed in the following sen "If this be not so, let some protectionist analyze the operation of his system, and show, by reference to undisputed economical principles, where and how it exerts any effect on production to increase it." In return I have only to request that, if this paper has not duly met his requisition, he will point out with precision exactly where and how it is erroneous or defective. The subject is one of tremendous importance, and there are thousands of honest and intelligent men who desire to be shown exactly what is and what is not true with regard to it. I have endeavored to avoid all side issues, and to go direct to the chief point in which the scholastic political economy appears to be erroneous. This is a small matter, indeed, when once pointed out; but it has been nevertheless sufficient to paralyze the keen intellects of its professors, sufficient to prevent their improving political economy into a real science, and sufficient to force them to conclusions the reverse of those drawn by the practical man from the industrial phenomena which he is obliged every day and hour to interpret, under the penalty of ruin if he fail to interpret correctly. GEORGE BASIL DIXWELL. REVIEW Of an article by Prof. Arthur L. Perry, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., in the Journal of the American Agricultural Association for July and October, 1881, entitled, "FARMERS AND THE TARIFF.” PROFESSOR PERRY states substantially as follows (his statements being merely condensed) that "the war of the American Revolution was waged mainly in the interests of a free trade; that one of the first acts of the thirteen colonies, April 6, 1776, was to establish free trade, which substantially continued until the present government was established in 1789; that no ill effects followed, and that the country was not flooded at that time with the cheap goods of foreigners, because the only way that can be brought about is for the natives to flood the foreigners with cheap native goods in exchange. In 1789 shrewd members of the first Congress, mostly from New England, at the instance and under the pressure of certain men who thought thereby to raise the price artificially of their own special home products, by means of lobbying and logrolling, caused to pass the first tariff bill, of which the preamble was: 'Whereas, it is necessary for the support of the Government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid,' and so on. The duties were low, but they introduced a false principle, that a man's neighbors may be taxed indefinitely to hire him to carry on an alleged unprofitable business; and this utterly false principle has brought on the protective system, which has grown so unjust, onerous, and abominable that no other free people would submit for a single year. It was well understood in 1789 that this system would be hostile to the interest of the farmers as such; the fallacy that a home market in some mysterious way compensates the farmers was not then invented, and can now be exploded by a few words. These words are: Unless it can be shown that protection - that is to say, restriction increases -- the number of births or diminishes the number of deaths, it is in vain to claim that there are any more mouths to be fed by the farmers than there would be under freedom.' "Fisher Ames said in 1789: From the different situation of manufacturers in Europe and America, encouragement is necessary. In Europe the artisan is driven to labor for his bread. Stern Necessity with her iron rod compels his exertion. In America, invitation and encouragement are needed. Without them the infant manufacture droops, and those who might be employed in it seek with success a competency from our cheap and fertile soil.' "This lets the protectionist cat right out of her bag. Our people are not poor enough, and never were, to carry on unprofitable branches of industry to support which the whole community has to be taxed, and particularly the agricultural classes. What then is to be done? Why, drag down agriculture by abominable taxes to the level of the alleged unprofitable infant manufactures. 'Protection assumed at the outset, and has maintained to this day, an attitude of unceasing hostility to the tillers of the soil. Protectionist manufacturers, who are a mere fraction of the population, have cajoled the farmers, who are one half the population, to consent to pay for their supplies prices artificially enhanced by law, and to sell their produce at prices artificially depressed by law. There never was a worse delusion than this on the part of the farmers, and there never was a worse swindle than this on the part of the party of the other part. But the manufacturers as a body are not benefited; many of them lose two dollars by protection for every one dollar which they gain; so that the free-traders of this country are fighting a battle in behalf of the manufacturers themselves (selfishness is always short-sighted) as well as in behalf of the farmers. That protective duties are a great burden is shown by the fact that the protectionist manufacturers never like to pay them themselves; it seems that what is sauce for the agricultural goose is not good for the protectionist gander. Whether the farmers see their true interest or not the fact remains that they are the ass that bears most of the burden and eats least of the hay of protection." Let us first examine the historical portion of this document. It is undoubtedly true that one object of the War of the Revolution was to free the trade of the colonies from the restrictions which Great Britain had placed upon it for the benefit of her own commerce and manufactures. It was, therefore, in |