INTRODUCTION. The purpose of the writer in presenting what he conceives to be the true object of the protective policy is to combat the erroneous idea that the only useful function of the system of protection is to assist in the establishment of a domestic manufacturing industry. This opinion is now freely expressed by authors who concede that protection performs a valuable service to a nation by artificially calling into existence industries whose growth under socalled natural conditions would have been slow, perhaps impossible; but who contend that when this result has been accomplished the industries created should be left to work out their destinies under a system of unrestrained competition. Those who hold to this view have been led astray by the false teachings of professional economists who have failed to perceive that no system of political economy which merely considers the present can be sound. That this is a fundamental defect of the doctrines of the Manchester school will be demonstrated in the following pages. It will be conclusively shown that the teachings and practices of the British followers of Cobden, although having for their professed object the cheapening of production and the consequent increase of consumption, had they been accepted and imitated by the world, would have resulted in an arrest of industrial progress and the ultimate defeat of the purpose which free traders assert is the sole aim of the policy advocated by them. It will be made clear that the most distinguished ex ponents of the doctrines of the Manchester school constantly disregard the fact that present cheapness may result in ultimate dearness, and that they completely ignore the necessity of considering the future. If there is a free trader who has pointed out that the welfare of the consumer in time to come is as much to be regarded by the economist as that of the consumer of the present day, his writings have not received much consideration. Those who have borne the Cobden banner in the front of the fray have certainly not done so, for their writings present an uninterrupted advocacy of a system which has for its object immediate gain at the expense of posterity. That this accusation is well founded will be admitted by every one capable of recognizing that the inevitable result of acting up to the theory of "buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market" is to promote the wasteful system of unnecessary transportation, which is carried on by a useless expenditure of human energy and the uncalled for destruction of an immense proportion of the world's store of fuel. The cheapest market for the time being must necessarily be that in which an industry is already established. No matter how great the resources of raw materials, or how abundant the facilities for converting them into finished products may be in an undeveloped country, in practice it is impossible to utilize them profitably unless artificial aid is extended to overcome the advantages enjoyed by those carrying on industries in older lands. Had the free trade theory that it is the part of wisdom to buy in the cheapest market been generally accepted it would have resulted in the arrest of that almost simultaneous universal progress which is one of the most conspicuous features of the closing years of the nineteenth century. Had the advice of Cobden and his adherents been followed by Americans and other peoples the world would |