A. We must take pains to compare the United States with some foreign country. As we have already shown that everything good that has occurred here is wholly owing to Protection, we must take some foreign country and charge all that is bad there, such as the costly armies, the despotic or kingly rule, the dense population, the illiteracy, etcetera, to Free Trade. There are no really Free Trade countries in Europe except England, and possibly Belgium. They are protective in part. But they are foreign, and that is sufficient for the argument. Only put the excess of our benefits over theirs to the benefit of Protection, and all will be right. Q. What shall we say about cheapness and dearness? A. Didn’t the Apostle Paul say we must be all things to all men? If we do seem to oppose somewhat the solidarity of humanity, we meet in our arguments a variety of mental difficulties. Our Apostle Harrison went for dearness by not wanting to find a cheap coat, for fear he should find a cheap man under it. Another Apostle thought “cheap and nasty go together.” At the final period of a Presidential election, however, it is better to say that Protection makes things cheap, and our editors almost always take that cue. To be sure, if cheapness were our intention, Protection could not be established, and we could not cry out against “cheap pauper labor.” The arguments must therefore be shuffled—and cheap and dear must sometimes be taken and at other times denied. The question is more or less of a crux, but it is the beauty of the noble doctrine of Protection that all trivialities of this sort it majestically sweeps away. Not being amenable to any of the laws of human reason, it is not disturbed by such trifles as truth and consistency. Q. But can’t we say the foreigner pays the tax? A. We certainly can and we do. But this argument needs very cautious handling. Sometimes duties are collected through the Post-Office, when the cat is let out of the bag and the duty comes directly to the man to whom the package is addressed. If he asks to have it charged to the foreign country his goods came from, even a Republican postmaster will sometimes laugh at him. Such perverse incidents as this are what Artemus Ward might call “in-fe-lick-et-us”—very. Q. How was it when Congress removed the tax from sugar? A. Well—sugar isn’t everything. It won’t do to be too one-sided. We could not resist telling the public then that we had removed a heavy burden from _its_ shoulders. We really hated to tax the foreigners so much. Q. What can be argued about the terms Protection and Free Trade?