But though the aggregate wealth may
be larger, its division among a greater
number of people may possibly make
the per capita wealth less may make
each individuals share smaller. An
increased total of wealth is quite com
patible with diminished individual
wealth, and we must not hastily con
clude that because general wealth has
increased, everybody must be better
oil. It is possible, and it seems ex
tremely probable, that farmers have
grown, relatively if not absolutely,
poorer through immigration. But con
cede for the moment that immigra
tion has helped and still helps the
farmer, in some invisible way. Then
the question arises, in what manner,
and to what extent has protection
promoted this immigration. The ma
jority of those who come here from
continental Kurope have such practical
familiarity with the negative virtues
of protection in their native lands, as
to preclude the notion that they come
here because they are pining for more
of it. If there was any magic potency
in it to transform poverty into afflu
ence. they ought all to have been
millionaires in their own countries.
To grant them a knowledge of the
nature and effect of protection, and
its relation to their impoverishment,
and enforced expatriation, necessitates
the conclusion that they emigrated
to get less, not more of it. That
they possessed any direct, favorable
know ledge of protection in America,
which induced them to emigrate, or
make this country their objective I
point, will not be insisted on by pro
tectionists. The point they do insist !
on. is that protection stimulated immi- i
gration, by making this country more
prosperous, improving and maintaining
wages, and making it easier for a poor
man to get a living, maintain and edu- \
cate his family, and acquire property.
