For the same reason there are always two phases of a tariff discussion. The student of social science inquires chiefly as to the tendencies of advancing society with reference to such restriction, and, seeing the barriers becoming less and less, is likely to seek the final removal of every such restriction. The statesman, busied with the immediate conditions of the limited community whose interests he guards, is liable to be for or against any particular restriction as it fosters or hinders those interests. For this reason statesmen, of whatever party, are subject to the bias of local interests, and have even been known to change their views with a change of such interests. In our own country, when party lines are drawn upon the tariff, it is quite possible that sectional lines may also mark the party supremacy. In fact, it is possible for any man to believe in freedom of trade as the ultimate condition to be sought, while he favors in immediate practice restriction or even prohibition by a definite tariff. The purpose in this chapter is to give a brief outline of arguments for and against such tariff in general, leaving entirely to practical statesmanship the decision of special questions.
_Reasons for protective tariff._--A system of restrictive tariffs is thought to contribute to the welfare of an entire community by artificially increasing the natural diversity of employments. If new enterprises can be fostered, exchanges are greatly increased, all the advantages of exchange are secured within the country, and the general intelligence of the people is increased. With this comes the enormous advantage of what is called a home market for the cruder products of industry. This is especially to the interest of farmers raising bulky products or those not likely to bear transportation. It is further thought to foster a better agriculture by a more natural return to the soil of elements removed in cropping, the nearer body of population making such return possible. It is also thought to make at once available the natural resources of a country in mines, quarries, water powers, etc., which might otherwise long remain useless. It is contended for as a means of checking unfair competition between a long established community with special advantages for factory methods, either in large accumulations of capital or low wages of laborers, and a newer country where capital is scarce and wages are high. It is sometimes held to be a means of maintaining a high standard of wages through the advantage actually conferred upon certain lines of industry, upon a supposition that competition at home without these favored industries would reduce the wages maintained in other industries. If a tariff on wool calls into profitable use a large amount of farm capital in sheep raising, every wheat raiser is at the same time benefited by reduction of competition in the wheat market. If the capital and labor employed are enticed from other countries, the effect is the same by increasing the demand at home for the wheat. That this does not operate so long as wheat raisers come to a market where a surplus must be consumed in other countries does not destroy the argument, since the tendency is to reduce the surplus. The system is also thought to encourage, in lines of industry likely to prove productive, a rapid development of labor-saving machinery and new methods of manufacture, which may some time give to a nation superiority in the markets of the world. To many there seems a much more important reason for restrictions, in order to establish every needed form of production for the sake of national independence. That nation which contains within its own borders the means of supplying all the wants of its people is supposed to be more capable of independent growth, and to be freed from hampering competitions of trade, that may lead to wars and, perhaps, to extreme suffering in case of foreign war.