principle in the relations of men and nations was the rule of freedom from artificial barriers. When opportunity served, as it did frequently, in connection with the discussion of abstract considerations, he wrote under inspiration of the faith that was in him. I suspect that a careful study of the files, with the massing together of many detached articles, would exhibit a practically complete exposition of all that may be said on behalf of the abstract theory of free trade. At the same time Mr. Scott was among those who saw advantages in a scheme of protective tariff, regarded purely as an expedient. To himself there was a clear line of distinction between the abstract and the practical presentment. His position to himself was clear. But to the rough-riding "protectionist" who knew and cared nothing of fundamentals and who under motives of self-interest or under the inspirations of partisan feeling made a fetish of "protection" there appeared neither logic nor honesty in Mr. Scott's position. He was persistently assailed by those who did not, and perhaps could not, understand him because they lacked intellectual and moral vision to distinguish between the tariff scheme regarded fundamentally on the one hand, and upon the other as an economic and political expedient.[1] Again, in connection with abstract studies Mr. Scott frequently declared judgments concerning minor matters, only to pass over these same considerations as they were related to current politics; and here again he was assailed as a man who held one set of opinions in off-years and another set of opinions when it came to the years of practical contention. These critics did not see what was clearly in the mind of the editor, namely, that politics in its practical aspects can only approximate the standards of the fundamental thinker. They could not understand—indeed they can never understand—that one may hold definitely to certain abstract ideals, yet in his working relations shape his course subject to the
- ↑ Mr. Scott, though a free 'trader, acted throughout his life with the protective tariff Republican party, because of larger and more vital issues, such as anti-slavery, preservation of the union, anti-greenbackism, gold standard, territorial expansion after the Spanish war. He was radically opposed to the Democratic party in these questions and considered them far more important than protective tariff. If he quitted the Republican party he knew he would lose effective political associations.
