list2-第51节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





products　and　manufactured　products。　It　perverts　the　fact　that　such



duties　always　operate　injuriously　on　the　production　of　primitive　or



natural　products；　into　the　false　conclusion　that　they　exercise　an



equally　detrimental　influence　on　the　production　of　manufactured



goods。



　　　　The　school　recognises　no　distinction　in　reference　to　the



establishment　of　manufacturing　industry　in　a　State　between　those



nations　which　are　not　adapted　for　such　industry　and　those　which；



owing　to　the　nature　of　their　territory；　to　perfectly　developed



agriculture；　to　their　civilisation；　and　to　their　just　claims　for



guarantees　for　their　future　prosperity　for　their　permanence；　and



for　their　power；　are　clearly　qualified；　to　establish　such　an



industry　for　themselves。



　　　　The　school　fails　to　perceive　that　under　a　system　of　perfectly



free　competition　with　more　advanced　manufacturing　nations；　a　nation



which　is　less　advanced　than　those；　although　well　fitted　for



manufacturing；　can　never　attain　to　a　perfectly　developed



manufacturing　power　of　its　own；　nor　to　perfect　national



independence；　without　protective　duties。



　　　　It　does　not　take　into　account　the　influence　of　war　on　the



necessity　for　a　protective　system；　especially　it　does　not　perceive



that　war　effects　a　compulsory　prohibitive　system；　and　that　the



prohibitive　system　of　the　custom…house　is　but　a　necessary



continuation　of　that　prohibitive　system　which　war　has　brought



about。



　　　　It　seeks　to　adduce　the　benefits　which　result　from　free　internal



trade　as　a　proof　that　nations　can　only　attain　to　the　highest　degree



of　prosperity　and　power　by　absolute　freedom　in　international　trade；



whereas　history　everywhere　proves　the　contrary。



　　　　It　maintains　that　protective　measures　afford　a　monopoly　to



inland　manufacturers；　and　thus　tend　to　induce　indolence；　while；



nevertheless；　all　the　time　internal　competition　amply　suffices　as



a　stimulus　to　emulation　among　manufacturers　and　traders。



　　　　It　would　have　us　believe　that　protective　duties　on　manufactured



goods　benefit　manufacturers　at　the　expense　of　agriculturists；



whereas　it　can　be　proved　that　enormous　benefits　accrue　to　home



agriculture　from　the　existence　of　a　home　manufacturing　power；



compared　to　which　the　sacrifices　which　the　former　has　to　make　to



the　protective　system　are　inconsiderable。



　　　　As　a　main　point　against　protective　duties；　the　popular　school



adduces　the　expenses　of　the　custom…house　system　and　the　evils



caused　by　contraband　trade。　These　evils　cannot　be　denied；　but　can



they　be　taken　seriously　into　account　in　comparison　of　measures



which　exercise　such　enormous　influence　on　the　existence；　the　power；



and　the　prosperity　of　the　nation？　Can　the　evils　of　standing　armies



and　wars　constitute　an　adequate　motive　for　the　nation　to　neglect



means　of　defence？　If　it　is　maintained　that　protective　duties　which



far　exceed　the　limit　which　offers　an　assured　remuneration　to



smuggling；　serve　merely　to　favour　contraband　trade；　but　not　to



benefit　home　manufactures；　that　can　apply　only　to　ill…regulated



customs　establishments；　to　countries　of　small　extent　and　irregular



frontiers；　to　the　consumption　which　takes　place　on　the　frontiers；



and　only　to　high　duties　on　articles　of　luxury　of　no　great　aggregate



bulk。



　　　　but　experience　everywhere　teaches　us　that　with　well…ordered



customs　establishments；　and　with　wisely　devised　tariffs；　the



objects　of　protective　duties　in　large　and　compact　states　cannot　be



materially　impeded　by　contraband　trade。



　　　　So　far　as　regards　the　mere　expenses　of　the　customs　system；　a



large　portion　of　these　would；　if　it　were　abolished；　have　to　be



incurred　in　the　collection　of　revenue　duties；　and　that　revenue



duties　can　be　dispensed　with　by　great　nations；　even　the　school



itself　does　not　maintain。



　　　　Moreover；　the　school　itself　does　not　condemn　all　protective



duties。



　　　　Adam　Smith　allows　in　three　cases　the　special　protection　of



internal　industry：　firstly；　as　a　measure　of　retaliation　in　case　a



foreign　nation　imposes　restrictions　on　our　imports；　and　there　is



hope　of　inducing　it　by　means　of　reprisals　to　repeal　those



restrictions；　secondly；　for　the　defence　of　the　nation；　in　case



those　manufacturing　requirements　which　are　necessary　for　defensive



purposes　could　not　under　open　competition　be　produced　at　home；



thirdly；　as　a　means　of　equalisation　in　case　the　products　of



foreigners　are　taxed　lower　than　those　of　our　home　producers。　J。　B。



Say　objects　to　protection　in　all　these　cases；　but　admits　it　in　a



fourth　case　　namely；　when　some　branch　of　industry　is　expected　to



become　after　the　lapse　of　a　few　years　so　remunerative　that　it　will



then　no　longer　need　protection。



　　　　Thus　it　is　Adam　Smith　who　wants　to　introduce　the　principle　of



retaliation　into　commercial　policy　　a　principle　which　would　lead



to　the　most　absurd　and　most　ruinous　measures；　especially　if　the



retaliatory　duties；　as　Smith　demands；　are　to　be　repealed　as　soon　as



the　foreign　nation　agrees　to　abolish　its　restrictions。　Supposing



Germany　made　reprisals　against　England；　because　of　the　duties



imposed　by　the　latter　on　German　corn　and　timber；　by　excluding　from



Germany　English　manufactured　goods；　and　by　this　exclusion　called



artificially　into　existence　a　manufacturing　power　of　her　own；　must



Germany　then　allow　this　manufacturing　industry；　created　at　immense



sacrifice；　to　come　to　grief　in　case　England　should　be　induced　to



reopen　her　ports　to　German　corn　and　timber？　What　folly。　It　would



have　been　ten　times　better　than　that　if　Germany　had　submitted



quietly　to　all　measures　of　restriction　on　the　part　of　England；　and



had　discouraged　the　growth　of　any　manufacturing　power　of　her　own



which　might　grow　up　notwithstanding　the　English　import



prohibitions；　instead　of　stimulating　its　growth。



　　　　The　principle　of　retaliation　is　reasonable　and　applicable　only



if　it　coincides　with　the　principle　of　the　industrial　development　of



the　nation；　if　it　serves　as　it　were　as　an　assistance　to　this



object。



　　　　Yes；　it　is　reasonable　and　beneficial　that　other　nations　should



retaliate　against　the　English　import　restrictions　on　their



agricultural　products；　by　imposing　restrictions　on　the　importation



of　manufactured　goods；　but　only　when　those　nations　are　qualified　to



establish　a　manufacturing　power　of　their　own　and　to　maintain　it　for



all　times。



　　　　By　the　second　exception；　Adam　Smith　really　justifies　not　merely



the　necessity　of　protecting　such　manufactures　as　supply　the



immediate　requirements　of　war；　such　as；　for　instance；　manufactories



of　arms　and　powder；　but　the　whole　system　of　protection　as　we



understand　it；　for　by　the　establishment　in　the　nation　of　a



manufacturing　power　of　its　own；　protection　to　native　industry　tends



to　the　augmentation　of　the　nation's　population；　of　its　material



wealth；　of　its　machine　power；　of　its　independence；　and　of　all



mental　powers；　and；　therefore；　of　its　means　of　national　defence；　in



an　infinitely　higher　degree　than　it　could　do　by　merely



manufacturing　arms　and　powder。



　　　　The　same　must　be　said　of　Adam　Smith's　third　exception。　If　the



burden　of　taxation　to　which　our　productions　are　subjected；　affords



a　just　ground　for　imposing　protective　duties　On　the　less　taxed



products　of　foreign　countries；　why　should　not　also　the　other



disadvantages　to　which　our　manufacturing　industry　is　subjected　in



comparison　with　that　of　the　foreigner　afford　just　grounds　for



protecting　our　native　industry　against　the　overwhelming　competition



of　foreign　industry？



　　　　J。　B。　Say　has　clearly　perceived　the　contradictory　character　of



this　exception；　but　the　exception　substituted　by　him　is　no　better；



for　in　a　nation　qualified　by　nature　and　by　its　degree　of　culture　to



establish　a　manufacturing　power　of　its　own；　almost　every　branch　of



industry　must　become　remunerative　under　continued　and　powerful



protection；　and　it　is　ridiculous　to　allow　a　nation　merely　a　few



years　for　the　task　of　bringing　to　perfection　one　great　branch　of



national　industry　or　the　whole　industry　of　the　nation；　just　as　a



shoemaker's　apprentice　is　allowed　only　a　few　years　to　learn



shoemaking。



　　　　In　its　eternal　declamations　on　the　immense　advantages　of



absolute　freedom　of　trade；　and　the　disadvantages　of　protection；　the



popular　school　is　accustomed　to　rely　on　the　examples　of　a　few



nations；　that　of　Switzerland　is　quoted　to　prove　that　industry　can



prosper　without　protective　duties；　and　that　absolute　liberty　of



international　commerce　forms　the　safest　basis　of　national



prosperity