with us: we should not, by the free exchange, be forced to give up the iron and coal industries entirely; for the best mines would still keep that occupation in existence to “diversify” the others.
So far the explanation covers the “extractive industries” only, or those industries affected by the law of diminishing returns when a larger quantity is demanded. The real question arises as to the manufactures of these materials. But we count upon larger industrial rewards, in the form of wages, and profits, here than in England; we must get more from an industry than England in order to satisfy us. Our grades of occupations, therefore, must be more productive to a certain extent, grade for grade, than English grades, in order to allow of their remaining free from competition. But we have this superiority, as regards our home market, owing to natural causes: (1) cheap raw materials (if we except wool and other commodities whose price is raised by the tariff); (2) advantage over England in cost of transportation of raw products; and (3) in the cost of transportation, again, of the finished goods in reaching our markets. Now, the processes of manufacture which do not put much labor upon the materials, especially where the articles are bulky, are conducted in this country without fear of foreign competition. And the range of this class of manufactures is surprisingly large. It includes the manufactures of iron, such as stoves, and the common utensils of every-day life; of hides, such as leather, harnesses, etc.; and of wood, such as all the furniture of common use. The list is too long to be fully stated here. These industries are not kept in existence by the tariff; and a diversity as wide as this would arise under a system of free exchange, as well as of restriction. Indeed, if duties were removed from so-called “raw materials,” it is altogether probable that a wider diversity would exist