Principles Are Inflexible; H. Spencer

Protectionism Protected trades, too, have afforded many proofs of the impolicy of injustice. . . . Under the now happily exploded plea of protection to native industry, the silk manufacturers were freed from all foreign competition. Their prices were thus artificially raised, and all the nation was compelled to buy of them. And so, having a large market and profits, they thought their prosperity ensured. They were doomed to disappointment, how ever. Instead of a brisk and extensive trade, they ob tained a languishing and confined one; and that branch of manufacture, which was to have been a pattern of commercial greatness, became a byword for whining poverty. How utterly absurd, under such a lamentable state of things, must have appeared the proposal to return toward equitable. dealing by lowering the dutiesl What "impracticables" must those men have been thought, who, because monopoly was unjust, wished to expose the almost ruined manufacturers to the additional difficulty of foreign competitionl Could any thing be more contrary to commonsense? Here surely was. a case in which ""ab stract principles" must give way to ""policy." No: even here, too, obedience to the moral law proved to be the best. Rebellion against it had been punished by accumu lated distresses: a partial submission was rewarded by [325 ] an increase of prosperity. Within fourteen years from the date at which duties were lowered, the trade had more than doubled itself-had increased more within that period than during the preceding century. And those who, but a short time before, were unable to meet their French compeers in the home-markets, not only began to compete with them in the marts of other nations, but to send large quantities of goods to France itself.

[326 ] PUBLIC HOUSING tg paul of. poipol ~ "We must have better housing for those Americans who are now forced to live in slums and substandard dwellings. JJJJ SO SAID a presidential candidate. And so believe a great number of the rank and file citizens of the United States. There really seems to be no question as to the desirability of adequate housing. But there are questions as to what kind of housing is adequate. There are questions as to who is being forced to live in slums and substandard dwell ings; who is applying the force. And perhaps the most important questions of all have to do with the methods of achieving better housing. Who is to determine what is better or best? Who is to provide and who is to occupy such better housing? The presidential candidate probably was not referring to his own personal need when he called for better hous ing. It is probable, however, that at least one purpose of his statement was to establish his eligibility for occu pancy of a house which has been recently repaired at a cost to American taxpayers of $5,832,000. Of course, the White House is not a housing project in the usual sense of the term; but the methods of providing the dwelling [327 ] and of selecting the occupant are strikingly similar to those used for public housing projects. In either case, the political method is used for determining the need and assessing the burden of the costs involved.