A. She does. The plea for it there is that it is a defense against our _high-priced_ labor. The Mexican peons work for very _low prices_ and at a more than correspondingly _high cost_. It is one of the beauties of Protection that, whether labor costs little or much, you can plead for it for either reason. Q. Does Protection help Agriculture? A. It puts a tariff on hay, grain, potatoes, eggs, etc. Very little of any of these commodities are imported by us. When they are imported to any extent the farmers are the chief buyers, as they are of peas, beans and other seeds for planting. By paying the duty on all these things themselves they not only feel certain there is a duty, but they have the satisfaction of knowing they are not forgotten in the great “protective” scheme. Q. Why is Protection called the American System? A. This was the question Daniel Webster asked Henry Clay, who so named it, when they were not in accord upon the tariff. Webster was puzzled by the name, for he knew the system was European and medieval; but “American” sounds well and makes us consistent in berating foreign things and ideas. Q. How does Protection help commerce? A. Commerce is so foreign we don’t need to help it. So we let it go to the miserable foreigners—what we permit to exist. It is really better to pay the two hundred million dollars we pay them yearly to carry our goods than to let that amount of money pervert our high and noble doctrine. Q. What is meant by having the tariff “revised by its friends”? A. That, as the English say, is a good “half-crown phrase.” But its real meaning is to oppose revising the tariff in any way whatever. Several elections have been carried by this plea, and we are still working it for all it is worth. Of course no one goes to have his shoes mended to a shoemaker who is in favor of their holes and lack of heels, and no one selects depredators of hen-roosts to watch chicken thieves; but we must not defer to ordinary rules when “the noble citadel of Protection” is in danger. Q. Is it understood that to change the tariff injures business? A. We always say that, and charge to Free Trade the calamity that ensues. Q. Suppose someone tells us there has been no Free Trade, and if Free Trade existed there would be no tariff to change, and therefore no injury from tariff changes? A. Then is the time to look wise and say little. For our main object is to make Protection the source of all good and Free Trade the cause of all evil. Q. How did it happen that, when hides were freed from duty in 1872—and even by the McKinley bill—they were taxed under the Dingley bill? A. Well—but—let’s see. Why shouldn’t hides enjoy prosperity? It’s certain the big cattle dealers, who use the Government pastures without cost, profit by the duty, while we can claim it helps the farmers. Q. Why are works of art tariff?