declared absolute Free Trade to be its motive, because that would involve a discontinuance of custom-houses. Under our present system it will long remain necessary for Free Trade to be qualified by the necessity for the collection of a certain amount of revenue from duties upon imports.

Under such conditions it follows that the whole subject should be removed from party politics, and ought to cease to be an element in party divisions, to the end that all obstructions which have heretofore prevented men of either party from acting together may be removed, as they have been in dealing with the silver question.

It cannot be doubted that it is the will of the people of this country that its unit of value shall remain what it now is; to wit, a dollar which is worth as much after it is melted as it is in the coin. It is the will of the people of this country that no fiat dollar, or dollar made of silver that is not worth as much after it is melted as it purports to be worth in the coin, shall be coined without limit or continue to be made a full legal tender. It is the will of the people of this country that the money in which the workman is paid shall be equal in its purchasing power or value to the money in which banks and bankers must of necessity transact their business in order to maintain their credit and to retain the confidence of the business community.

It is the will of the people of this country that its system of taxation shall be simple and plain; that the sum of money raised by taxation shall not exceed what is required for the conduct of the government when economically administered; and that all taxes that the people pay, the government shall receive. The problem is how to adjust legislation so as to give expression to these purposes. That is a question of practical legislation.

Now it will be apparent that no true or just solution of this problem can be reached except through a discussion of the underlying principles which must govern any policy of taxation. If there were no necessity for a revenue to support the government, no sane man would propose to put a tax or duty upon anything either of foreign or domestic origin; but since there is a necessity for raising a certain amount of revenue by duties upon imports, no judicious person would assess these duties without such discrimination in the choice of subjects of taxation and in the mode of applying the duties as would most effectually promote domestic industry and protect home labor from injury.

The objective point of both the systems now contending for preference is the same. Their representatives, as a rule, are equally sincere in the conviction that their chosen method will most fully secure the objects named. What is called Protection and what is called Free Trade, qualified only by the necessity of a moderate tariff for revenue purposes, are simply names representing the same purpose.

Ultimate Free Trade is the declared object of the advocates of what is commonly called Protection, to be reached at some future date, when certain conditions precedent have been secured. Free trade, qualified by a tariff for revenue only, is the objective point of the other side. The difference is only upon the question of the time when to begin so as to reach the objective point which is common to both. Recourse may therefore be had to the simple elements of the case which may be developed by the consideration of two plain questions:

First, the principle of Protection, what is it?

Second, the principle of Free Trade, what is it?

If there is a distinct underlying principle governing the

case, then, of course, the policy of the country must sooner or later become adjusted to that fundamental principle, whatever it is, because the definition of a principle is, "a rule of action among human beings." If there is a principle underlying the one and not the other theory, then the one which is based upon a principle will in the end be adopted and will govern the policy of the country.

English jurists have an excellent method of defining the meaning of words before proceeding to incorporate them in any acts of legislation. It may be well to adopt this method in dealing with the fundamental questions upon which our acts of taxation should be framed. That method will be adopted in the subsequent chapters.

CHAPTER XIV.

ATTEMPTED DEFINITION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTION BY SENATORS SHERMAN, HOAR,

AND ALDRICH.

IN Webster's Dictionary the word Principle is defined as a "truth admitted either without proof, or considered as having been before proved; a settled law or rule of action in human beings.'

The word Policy is defined as "that system of measures which the sovereign of a country adopts and pursues as the best adapted to the interests of the nation."

If a system of taxation can be founded upon a principle according to the definition given in the dictionary, any subsequent discussion of the matter must be without effect. If, however, that which is defined as a principle is merely a policy, then reasonable men may rightly change their views of what the policy should be according to their experience or knowledge of the effects and conditions which have been developed under the application of that policy. The importance of this discrimination between a principle and a policy will become apparent as this subject is developed.

Among those who took part in promoting the protective measures which were adopted subsequently to the war, no one attained greater influence than the late Erastus B. Bigelow. He was substantially the author of the Wool and Woollen tariff, of which the present provisions of

the McKinley act on wool and woollens are but a new adjustment. This original wool and woollen tariff was intelligently framed, and was justified on very simple grounds. It was held that there should be a specific duty upon foreign wool for the protection of the domestic woolgrower. It was believed that this duty would raise the price of all wool, domestic as well as foreign, and thus increase the cost of wool to the manufacturer. A provision was therefore carefully framed for assessing a specific duty upon woollen manufactures, the intention of which was to give exact compensation to the woollen manufacturer for the increased cost of raw material to which he would be subjected by the duty on wool. There was no concealment and no reservation about this declared purpose.

It was held by Mr. Bigelow and his associates that in this way the woollen manufacturer would be placed in the same position as that which he would hold if there were no specific duty either upon the wool or upon the goods. This matter having been adjusted, it was then held by Mr. Bigelow and his associates that there should be a moderate ad-valorem duty of twenty-five per cent. upon woollen and worsted fabrics, for the purpose of protecting the manufacturers. The justification of this protective duty of twenty-five per cent. was the alleged higher cost of labor in this country as compared to the cost of labor in foreign countries. Ad-valorem duties were therefore imposed upon woollen and worsted fabrics in addition to the specific compensating duties upon the raw wool, for the distinct purpose of Protection, and this protective duty was at the rate of twenty-five per centum. Reference may be had to the arguments before the Committee of Ways and Means by which they were governed in framing these acts. Mr. Bigelow did not justify protective legislation on the ground of a principle. He held that a protective