policy of the
nation during its periods of remarkable growth. Two arguments largely
supported this policy. In the first place, it was early conceived that
protection was essential to the development of infant industries; in
the second, the belief was accepted that to an agricultural country a
home market is the only guarantee of a regular market. Because,
however, of the unprecedented growth of the country and its final
achievement of economic independence, other reasons were sought to
support the protective policy. It was contended, therefore, that the
high wages paid in the United States would discourage producers from
introducing new industries which, without protection, must compete on
equal terms with the products of low waged Europe. Finally, it was
pointed out that the owners of great wealth must suffer tremendous
loss of capital if protection were withdrawn from certain industries,
compelling them to compete on equal basis with the industries of like
kind of foreign countries.

In addition to these economic arguments, moreover, a political
argument was not lacking. Ambitious statesmen have ever dreamed of a
policy with which to cement the bonds that unite the different
sections of the country, making them mutually dependent and, at the
same time, independent of Europe. Protection, it was said, would do
this. In full justice to Lynch, therefore, it must be said that his
doctrine, whether or not sound, was not without basis. His firm stand
for a protective tariff conformed to the policy that has recently
controlled in the nation.

Sometime thereafter, White, in the Fifty-fifth Congress, had occasion
to speak on the Wilson Tariff Law enacted in 1893. This measure[90] he
held to be responsible for the unemployment among mill workers in his
community and the loss of contracts by the Southern producers. He
advocated, therefore, protection for the industries and labor of
America against the pauperism and cheap labor of foreigners.

Several other subjects of economic character were discussed by the
Negro Congressmen. During his terms in the Forty-eighth and
Forty-ninth Congresses, James E. O'Hara discussed at length the
measure on labor arbitration.[91] Shortly thereafter, in the
Fifty-first Congress, John M. Langston made informing remarks on the
shipping bill.[92] Presenting in support of his position
communications from the chambers of commerce of the principal cities
of his State urging his support of the pendin