Seven Short Conversations That Explore Both Sides
With Evidence Cited and Common Errors Corrected
By Albert Clarke, A.M.
Secretary for seventeen years of the Home Market Club
Chairman of the U.S. Industrial Commission, 1898–1902
Modernized Edition • 2026
A clear, updated rewrite of the original 1906 pamphlet that presented both sides of the tariff debate in simple conversations.
Introduction
In April 1906, a series of seven short papers known as the Bright and Strong Papers were published in nine languages and mailed primarily to new citizens in Massachusetts. They quickly gained popularity across the country because they dealt with a truly national question.
The goal was simple: explain the tariff question in plain language to young voters and new Americans, presenting both sides fairly and answering every common objection with evidence.
Abraham Lincoln once observed that the tariff question would remain with us as long as the government exists. The reason is constitutional — all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which is elected every two years. This makes the tariff both an economic and a political issue.
Every voter should understand it as an American question, not merely a theory to be judged by British or French textbooks. As the late Professor Bowen of Harvard noted, every major country needs its own political economy. The protective system used by the United States is now the policy of nearly every nation except Great Britain.
These short readings cover the fundamental distinctions and provide the key to understanding the entire subject.
Conversation 1
Mr. Bright and Mr. Strong
On the train from Boston to Pittsfield — November 29, 1905
The train was crowded with Thanksgiving travelers. Mr. Bright, a younger man, remarked that the country’s apparent prosperity seemed like an artificial “hot-house growth” created by protectionism.
Mr. Strong: Protection is one of the most natural things in the world. Every living creature tries to protect itself from danger. Houses, clothing, armies, navies, and tariffs are artificial tools, but the need for protection is completely natural.
Mr. Bright: Protection might make sense for “infant industries,” but the United States now has giant industries, vast natural resources, huge crops worth billions, and over 200,000 miles of railroad. Isn’t it humiliating for such a powerful country to build a “Chinese wall” against weaker nations?
Mr. Strong: No, I’m proud of it. Our policy gives every person a strong incentive to do their best. One American worker produces about as much as one foreign worker, but two foreign workers together often produce more than I can — and their combined wages are frequently less than my single wage. Without a tariff, their goods could flood our market, drive down wages, and possibly push them toward European or even Japanese levels. I wouldn’t be able to afford my home, support my family properly, or give my children the opportunities they have now. We wouldn’t have built so much of this country without protecting our own opportunities.
Mr. Bright: Are these great crops really yours? You’re paying high prices for potatoes and eggs. Isn’t your coat taxed to enrich woolen trusts and big sheep ranchers in Montana and Wyoming? And are your wages real wages — measured by what they actually buy?
Mr. Strong: I’ve thought about that carefully. After paying protective prices for everything my family needs, I still have more money left for savings than workers in my position in any other country. Protection stimulates production and increases supply, which tends to lower prices over time. Goods of all kinds are cheaper now than they were 25 or 50 years ago. Free trade or sharp tariff cuts would cause panics, reduce earnings, and leave people with less money to spend. My coat today is better and cheaper than anything I could have bought years ago.
Mr. Bright: I heard William Lloyd Garrison say he got a suit made in London for less than half what a Boston tailor would charge.
Mr. Strong: That’s tailor-made clothing — an exception. For goods manufactured for ordinary people, the United States leads the world in quality, fit, and low prices. Custom tailoring is expensive here because cutters, stitchers, and seamstresses are paid twice as much as in England.
Mr. Bright: That makes it hard for refined people of moderate means. The manufacturers and producers have us by the throat.
Mr. Strong: Do you really believe they’re conspiring to rob their fellow citizens? Most members of Congress are refined people. Why would they pass a law to rob themselves? Only producers face direct foreign competition, which is why they receive tariff protection. Other groups — merchants, bankers, professionals — benefit indirectly from a strong overall economy.
Mr. Bright: Edward Atkinson says only about 9% of people work in industries truly threatened by foreign competition, so the rest are being taxed for their benefit.
Mr. Strong: Atkinson was mistaken — he excluded farmers. More importantly, when protection is applied to exposed industries, it sets the wage and living standard for the entire country. It’s like tall buildings in Boston: they’re only a small percentage of all structures, but if a foreign fleet bombarded them, the whole city would suffer.
A bystander asked for a basic explanation of what a tariff is and how it works. The two men agreed to continue the discussion on the return trip later that day, and several passengers said they would join them to listen.
Conversation 2
The Return Journey
Defining tariffs, specific vs. ad valorem duties, and revenue vs. protective tariffs
On the way back to Boston, Mr. Bright explained the basics for the group.
All civilized countries need revenue and raise part of it through duties (customs taxes) on imported goods. The law that sets these taxes is called a tariff. Customs houses at ports and rail crossings collect the duties. Importers bring goods in; exporters send goods out.
Mr. Young: Is it possible that a tariff names every article and sets a duty on each one?
Mr. Bright: No. Only the principal articles are named and grouped into schedules — agricultural, chemical, iron and steel, and so on. Unlisted articles are taxed at rates similar to comparable listed goods. Some judgment is left to customs officials.
Mr. Young: Why are some duties called specific and others ad valorem?
Mr. Bright: A specific duty is a fixed amount per yard, per pound, etc., regardless of the value of the goods. It is simple to collect and difficult to evade. Most European tariffs use specific duties.
Mr. Bright: An ad valorem duty is a percentage of the value. A 20% duty on goods worth $100 means $20 is collected.
Mr. Gray: What about compound duties?
Mr. Bright: Those combine both — for example, 50 cents per yard plus 30% of value. It’s a protectionist device that adds another layer of protection.
Mr. Strong: Now let me explain the real difference between a protective tariff and a revenue-only tariff. Great Britain collects roughly as much customs revenue per person as we do, but it taxes goods that are not produced domestically — tea, coffee, and so on. It puts no duties on cotton, woolens, iron, or steel, so it becomes a dumping ground for foreign surpluses.
Mr. Strong: The United States does the opposite. We admit free goods we cannot produce in commercial quantities and place duties on goods we can produce. Those duties force foreign manufacturers to pay into our Treasury the savings they gained from paying lower wages abroad before they can sell here. We protect agriculture and mining the same way. As McKinley said, this policy helped make the United States first in agriculture, first in mining, and first in manufacturing.
Mr. Bright: Having become so strong, haven’t we accomplished the object of protection? Can’t we now stand without the prop?
Mr. Strong: Some industries can, but many cannot. One American worker still cannot produce as much as two foreign workers whose wages together are often less than mine. Without duties, their goods could undersell ours and cost me my job. Protection remains necessary. It is not a temporary expedient — it has repeatedly helped the economy recover from harmful tariff reductions.
They agreed to meet again at the Wells Memorial Institute the following week to discuss labor and wages in more detail.
Conversation 3
How the Tariff Protects Labor
Wages in Italy and Japan, and the situation of clerks and salespeople
At the Wells Memorial Institute, Mr. Strong presented information from a pamphlet called Labor Abroad showing very low wages in other countries. He argued that lowering tariffs would risk American jobs and living standards.
Mr. Bright: The United States has three big advantages: cheap fuel and raw materials, superior organization and machinery, and more alert, ambitious workers. These should make our production costs competitive despite higher wages.
Mr. Strong: Some of that is true, but English workers who visited in 1903 found skilled British labor quite productive. Higher American wages, partly due to protection, explain much of our workers’ energy and ambition. If tariffs were cut and more foreign goods entered, employers could no longer pay current wages. Employment would fall and standards would sink toward foreign levels.
Mr. Strong read consular reports on wages in Italy: girls under 15 earning 11–12 cents a day in match factories, women in cotton mills earning 29–39 cents a day.
Mr. Bright: Why keep out Italian goods with high duties but let Italian workers in freely?
Mr. Strong: Once here, immigrants work under American conditions and buy American-made goods. President Lincoln said it well: when you import goods, you get the goods but the money goes abroad; when you produce them here, you keep both the goods and the money. Healthy immigration to a country full of opportunity is beneficial, but we still need protection against the harsh conditions immigrants left behind.
Mr. Young mentioned low Japanese wages and expressed concern about future competition.
Mr. Thomas (a salesman): Salespeople and other “unprotected” workers are hurt by high tariffs and union demands. Prices have risen, and prosperity seems to make life harder for people on fixed incomes.
Mr. Gray and Mr. Strong: Salespeople benefit when mills and factories are busy and workers are well employed. If protection were removed and industries suffered, there would be fewer buyers and less business for stores. All industries are interconnected.
They agreed to meet again in two weeks to examine wages, prices, and savings more closely.
Conversation 4
Wages, Savings, and the Interdependence of Industries
The group adopted a new rule: no mere denunciation — only facts and reasons.
Mr. Strong: There are no truly “unprotected” classes. Salespeople’s pay is generally twice as high as in foreign countries. During the low-tariff period of 1894–1897, many saleswomen lost their jobs and charity workshops had to be opened. Stores cannot thrive unless mills thrive.
Mr. Gray (a small merchant): Wholesale prices of necessities were actually lower under the current tariff than in earlier periods. Wages for clerks and salespeople in stores are slightly higher than comparable factory wages, and most have risen substantially in recent years.
Mr. Strong: The key lesson is that all industries are linked. Hurting one hurts the others. The previous Democratic tariff hurt woolens badly but did not help cottons as much as expected, because the whole economy suffered when one major sector was damaged.
Mr. Young: Is that why you oppose “free raw materials”?
Mr. Strong: Exactly. What is raw material for one industry is finished product for farmers and miners. They deserve protection too, and they greatly outnumber manufacturers.
Mr. Strong cited official data showing substantial wage increases and a dramatic rise in savings bank deposits — from about 5.2 million depositors and $2 billion in 1897 to nearly 7.7 million depositors and over $3 billion in later years.
Mr. Welch (recently from Wales): A British editor who visited the U.S. was surprised by how much better off working people and the middle class are here compared to Britain. America under protection is a working people’s paradise.
Mr. Bright: The tariff has a large free list and the average duty is moderate, but some duties are outrageously high and trusts take advantage of them.
Mr. Strong: I’ll address high duties and trusts at our next meeting.
Conversation 5
Why Duties Must Be Higher Today
Trusts, cut-price foreign competition, and why early tariffs were lower
Mr. Strong: High and low duties are relative terms. When foreign markets are glutted, imports surge and higher duties are needed to prevent dumping. Tariffs cannot be changed every few months, so duties must be set high enough to protect against occasional cut-price surges.
Mr. Bright: Wouldn’t free trade let prices find their natural level, like water?
Mr. Strong: That’s a common mistake. Prices could be driven artificially low by foreign bankruptcies, hardships, or deliberate efforts to capture the American market and destroy domestic production. Bankrupt sales and slave-labor goods are not real benefits if they close our mills and leave workers unable to buy anything.
Mr. Bright: Why are duties now much higher than in the early days of the republic, when industries were infants?
Mr. Strong: Three main reasons: (1) Early tariffs were mainly for revenue because the country was poor. (2) American wages had not yet risen much above European levels. (3) Ocean freight rates provided natural protection — 15–25% of goods’ value in sailing-ship days. Today they are only 3–4% or less. Modern steamships made foreign competition far more dangerous.
Mr. Bright: Don’t American trusts sell goods abroad at lower prices than at home?
Mr. Strong: Yes, but only a small percentage of production — about 12% for U.S. Steel. Selling surpluses abroad at near cost helps keep factories running steadily at home, which lowers overall costs and supports American wages. If the entire output had to be sold at foreign prices, wages would have to fall.
Mr. Thomas: High wages are the fault of the “Labor Trust,” which is the most tyrannical of all.
Mr. Welch and Mr. Strong: Labor unions exist in free-trade Britain too. Abuses can be corrected by law without destroying the protective system that benefits workers.
Mr. Strong: Britain, a free-trade country, had trusts before the United States did. Protection is not the cause of trusts.
They agreed to discuss reciprocity at the next meeting.
Conversation 6
Reciprocity — Two Kinds
Mr. Bright: Reciprocity is an agreement between two countries to admit each other’s goods at lower or zero duties, usually on specific items.
Mr. Strong: There are two important types. Reciprocity on similar goods that compete directly is essentially limited free trade. The 1854–1866 treaty with Canada on natural products (hay, lumber, coal, fish) hurt American producers because Canada could produce them more cheaply and sold more to us than we sold to them.
Mr. Strong: Reciprocity on dissimilar goods that do not compete can be mutually beneficial. The McKinley-era treaty with Brazil exchanged coffee and rubber for wheat and machinery and increased trade for both countries. Democrats ended it in 1894.
Mr. Bright: Wouldn’t cheap food from Canada help American workers?
Mr. Strong: Protecting American farmers increases domestic food production and helps keep overall supply high, which benefits consumers. We already admit tea, coffee, and other non-competing products free. The sugar tariff has encouraged rapid growth in domestic beet and cane sugar plus production in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Reciprocity that discouraged our own production would make us dependent on foreign suppliers.
Mr. Strong: We should reject any reciprocity that endangers American industries and jobs. President McKinley attached exactly that condition in his final speech.
Conversation 7
Final Meeting
Reciprocity, the Chamberlain policy, steel rails, and parting thoughts
Mr. Bright: Joseph Chamberlain in Britain is advocating protection tempered by colonial reciprocity. Dingley promised the same thing when he raised duties. Reciprocity seems like a good platform to get elected on, but not to stand on.
Mr. Welch: Chamberlain’s goal is Imperial Federation — binding Britain and its colonies through mutual trade preferences, similar to America’s system of internal free trade plus external protection. Canada already gives preferences to British goods.
Mr. Gray: U.S. trade with Canada is growing faster than Britain’s, mainly due to geography and speed of delivery. Tariffs are not blocking friendly commerce.
Mr. Strong: The core question is whether we will preserve the national policy that has given us higher wages and living standards. Protection is not a temporary crutch. As long as large wage gaps exist with other countries, we need it to maintain our superiority.
Mr. Strong (on steel rails and exports): Selling small surpluses abroad at low prices allows steady full production at home. This lowers overall costs and supports American wages. If the entire output had to be sold at foreign prices, wages would fall.
Mr. Strong (final thought): Above all questions of timing or method of revision lies the vital question of preserving our national policy and our national superiority in wages and living standards. Protection has made this nation stronger. Why should we risk changing it?
The group parted on friendly terms after thoroughly examining both sides of the great tariff question.
Note on This Edition
This is a modernized rewrite of Albert Clarke’s 1906 pamphlet The Tariff Made Plain. The original presented both sides of the tariff debate through friendly conversations between Mr. Bright (more free-trade leaning) and Mr. Strong (protectionist).
The language, sentence structure, and some examples have been updated for clarity and readability while preserving every argument, fact, and historical reference from the original. No positions were added or removed. The document remains a balanced presentation of the protectionist and revenue-only viewpoints as they were understood in the early 20th century United States.
Original publication: Boston, 1906 — Published by the Home Market Club. Thirty-fifth thousand.