Many of the most ardent friends of protection agree that it has little economic justification, and that it imposes a heavy financial burden on any society which adopts its principles and practices. They insist, however, and with justice, that the financial cost of protection does not differ in principle from the cost of a battleship. Each in its own way, they say, plays an important role in defending the country from her enemies. The Great War brought the truth of this argument home to the whole world. The interruption of our trade with the Central Powers threatened for a time to cripple some of the important industries that depended on German products, such as chemicals and dyes. Fortunately, after expensive experiments and long delays, we succeeded in making good our loss in these lines. But it is doubtful if, in the long run, we gained by not having previously encouraged these same manufactures by protecting them against German competition. As one writer has put it: What does it profit a poorly clad and poorly equipped soldier to know that for generations his ancestors have gained financially by purchasing their woolen cloth and equipment from the present enemy simply because they could not make them so cheaply at home ?