Let us see what it is against which he protests. Importation of works of art for an exhibition is free, as he and the Transcript admit. Art works imported for education by a State, municipality, institution or society, or for a municipal corporation for the purpose of erecting a public monument, also come in free. The works of American artists temporarily residing abroad are admitted without duty. So are works of foreign artists imported for presentation to national, State or municipal institution, or to a religious society, college or other institution. a It But works brought here for sale, or purchased abroad and imported for private use, are subject to the low duty of 20 per cent ad valorem. must be this to which Mr. Whistler objects. Without imputing to him any desire to sell here, for as to that I know nothing, the logic of his pro test is that if he cannot sell without paying a duty he will not exhibit duty free. I forbear to characterize this as a piece of foreign impudence, dictating what our tariff should be, for probably Mr. Whistler never thought of it in that light, but I commend to the Transcript, which is a patriotic American newspaper, the consideration of these two arguments in favor of the duty: 1. Works of art are luxuries, imported almost exclusively by the most prosperous people, and are therefore fittest subjects for revenue duties. 2. If the duty is in the least protective, have we not many American artists who should thus be encouraged to live and work at THE MEN BEHIND THE MOVEMENTS. HOSE who are trying to use THOSE reciprocity for dividing the Republican party have dwelt much upon the declaration of the National Association of Manufacturers in favor of extending our foreign trade by this means. This has led Mr. Theodore C. Search, president of that association, to say that "nearly every manufacturer who spoke on the subject prefaced his remarks by saying that he had been a lifelong protectionist and still held the same opinions. There was not a single speaker in the entire convention who argued from a free trade standpoint or who spoke against the protective policy on general principles." Mr. Search goes on to say that there are different classes who view reciprocity from from different standpoints, and he names as one class "the ultra protectionists who believe that our tariff policy must remain unaltered throughout the ages, regardless of the progress to our industries and the necessities of our interinternational trade." Now, with great respect to Mr. Search, we submit that he will have difficulty in finding enough individuals in the United States of the character described to form a class. We think we know something of protectionists, but we do not know one who answers this description. Mr. Search has been taking definitions from men who are not protectionists. Every intelligent advocate of protection knows that economic changes require tariff changes, and that a measure of protection must necessarily be governed by business principles and by a great array of facts concerning the commerce and industries of the world at the time the measure is undertaken. The secretary of the National Association of Manufacturers is authority for the statement that all or nearly all its members are to some extent exporters. Hence probably that branch of trade is a prominent if not a foremost object in the deliberations and measures of that association. But there are other associations; older, of larger membership, and of more experience in dealing with public questions; among them may be named the Manufacturers' Club of Philadelphia, the American Iron and Steel Association, the American Protective Tariff League, and the Home Market Club. These great aggregations of the manufacturers of the East recognize the superiority of the home market to foretign markets and stand for its preservation, but at the same time desire to gain all the foreign markets which can be obtained by proper enterprise and by such legislation or negotiation as will not sacrifice some industries for the benefit of others. Many of the members of the National Association belong to these other organizations or some of them. They are not inconsistent or double dealing. They may employ They may employ different agencies for different work. But it would be error to assume that they have divided purposes and that the general policy which has been theirs in the past is to be abandoned. If there is any discernible difference between Mr. Search and his association and the great protectionist organizations named it is in his possible greater willingness to have an early general revision of the tariff, in order that thereby the schedules may in some respects be better adapted to reciprocal agreements with other countries or to the promotion of foreign trade. It is quite possible that some changes of this character can be made to advantage when the tariff is revised. But the prevailing opinion among business men is that the objects to be attained are not important enough to justify a revision of the tariff at the present time or in the near future. Even many free traders strongly oppose such revision, because they know that wholly irrespective of questions involved, the very fact of revision itself causes so much uncertainty that business men take in sail, curtail their orders, cease to expand, and all this means such a shrinkage in the volume of business as to amount to a partial paralysis of trade and in many lines this would change prosperity into adversity. The occasion must be, therefore, really pressing and important to justify such an undertaking, and we believe that the great body of even those who favor some degree of reciprocity, and who think it possible that some of the tariff schedules are unnecessarily high, think that it is better to bear these small ills than it is to open a Pandora's box and put a check upon the general thrift. INWARDNESS OF THE STEEL THE STRIKE. HE Amalgamated Association forced a crisis because they believed it would come sooner or later. They tried to unionize the nonunion mills and because consent was not given they struck. They believed that the corporation would favor the non-union mills in case of slack of work and when there is a choice of orders. They also believed that when anything should occur to afford excuse for it, the corporation would deunionize all its shops. The foundation for this belief was the experience at Homestead in 1892. The company had introduced machinery which in some cases doubled the output per man. The Amalgamated refused to change its scale for piece work to conform to the new conditions, and the reason was because some of its leaders were earning more than $20 a day. The company insisted upon a readjustment so as to better equalize wages. The failure of the strike made the shop free. Not less but more money has ever since been paid to labor, but the bosses get less and the men more, the average for all being four dollars a day. One result of this is that thousands of men wish to remain out of the union. In the circumstances why should the corporation be expected to allow them to be drawn in against their will? In this case organized labor has attempted to dictate to both unorganized labor and capital. It has made at least a tactical mistake. It should have waited for at least one act of the discrimination which it feared. If it now interferes with the running of mills, it invites a declaration of independence on the part of both labor and capital. If it does not interfere the shops will be able to resume after the vacation which the men are now enjoying is over. THE boot and shoe trade of Austria asks the Stadtholter what it is going to do to avert the threatened invasion of the Vienna market by an American syndicate. We do not know what they can do, but we would advise them to lease American machinery, import a few American foremen and copy American styles. A PRICE REGULATOR. [By Hon. J. R. Dodge.] THE Philadelphia Record, an advo cate of free trade even amid the ruin which its partial operation caused five years ago, dwells with much emphasis upon "foreign trade as a regulator of prices," declaring what every one knows to be true in a limited sense, that "foreign trade acts as a governor of the industrial machine." With a characteristic sneer at the claim of supreme importance of the home market it says: "The 'home market' fraternity may sneer at the insignificance of our exports by comparison with domestic consumption of commodities; but the 'driblet' of outbound commerce suffices to relieve the depressing effect which a relatively small surplusage of supply and demand exercises upon domestic prices." A new factor in trade, though representing a small percentage of its volume, may disturb its balance. Thus Argentina has come suddenly into the foreign wheat trade, with a surplus small as compared with that of America, or Russia even, and excites more attention for a time than all other wheat exporting countries. A glut in any market may be relieved by finding a new source of demand into which the stagnating surplus can be dumped. An excess of five per cent may cause a fall of ten per cent in the market, and a deficiency of ten per cent may be an excuse for adding twenty to the price. The buyer's ex tremity is the seller's opportunity, not merely to increase price in proportion to deficiency, but to take a wicked advantage of need. What is a commercial "corner" but an illustration of this ruffianism of trade? Because a new development of foreign trade may relieve a glut, and restore normal commercial conditions, it furnishes no proof of the superiority A of foreign over domestic trade. dozen states became insane over the assumption of superiority of the cotton states over twice as many others, because cotton was exported, while wheat and corn were not; and yet the surplus cash from cotton went to pay for corn and wheat and other goods from these other states. Then cotton was crowned king, from a foolish assumption of the superior value of exports over home consumption. Forty years have passed, the cotton crop is three times as large, its exports have greatly increased, yet while the exports of cotton last year were valued at $313,283,578, those of bread and meat (cereals and provisions) were worth $483,899,351, and other products of agriculture made a handsome additional sum. A dollar in foreign trade is worth no more than a dollar in domestic trade. If needed to supply an enlarged demand for domestic consumption, and elevate the standard of living or add to comforts or resources of our own people, the dollar spent at home is of more value than a dollar in foreign exchange. In the era of the Cleveland panic, the result of threatened free trade made absolute in wool and other products, the shrinkage of home consumption from desuetude of labor and reduction of income was far more than the whole value of all exports, shutting up factories, shunting freight cars from the tracks of transportation, withdrawing deposits from the banks, stagnating trade in all lines, reducing the value of farms, depressing rents for stores and buildings, causing failures and begetting loss of confidence between man and man. Was not this infinitely worse than the loss of all our foreign trade? Our foreign trade is a mere bagatelle compared with our domestic trade, and the activity and prosperity of the home traffic mean tenfold more to the public welfare and the happiness of the American citizen than the largest foreign trade ever attained or dreamed of. Every million dollars' increase of exports, from a surplus that threatens to depress the value of what is required for consumption, is desirable, but if the requirement for profitable consumption can be increased to the same extent, it means just as much more to the country at large. This is a fact which free traders either cannot see see or will not acknowledge. They have always absurdly magnified foreign commerce, and depreciated, decried and belittled home production, and hence cramped and minimized domestic consumption. |