Governor Wilson, for example, wishes tariff reduction because, from his study of government and politics, he believes "protection" to be a special privilege, a favor to the few at the expense of the many. It is not a question of expediency with him. It is a question of morals. Yet he recognizes that free trade is unattainable and that even the reduction of the tariff to a revenue basis must be accomplished at a pace consistent with business stability.

In Governor Harmon's mind, also, the protective tariff is a wrong, an opportunity given by the Government to a favored few to tax the people. It is the vigorous tariff conviction of Cleveland's Cabinet that Mr. Harmon still holds.

President Taft's views, on the other hand, seem to be based upon the theory of expediency rather than upon any belief in the moral iniquity of the tariff, and his record as a tariff reformer has not been a record of accomplishment. He accepted the Payne-Aldrich tariff and he vetoed the tariff reduction bills that were later presented to him by a Democratic House elected largely in protest against the Payne Bill. His programme to make the tariff equalize the cost of production here and abroad is becoming untenable, for the Tariff Board is unable to say just what that difference is. The President seems more earnest, perhaps, about the method of tariff legislation than about having the tariff lowered.

Mr. Roosevelt's views embody a schedule by schedule revision upon data furnished by experts, but the distinctive part of his programme is the insistence that the protection which the tariff affords shall be given primarily to the wage worker and the farmer. If employers have kept all the added income which the high tariff

enabled them to get, Mr. Roosevelt suggests that some department or bureau of the Government shall make them share with labor. In other words, if it can be done, he wishes to have the spoils divided.

For the regulation of corporations in New Jersey Governor Wilson pushed through a legislature in which the House and the Senate were of opposite parties a public utilities law that has been effective and he followed it with an employers' liability law.

Governor Harmon, as Attorney-General in Cleveland's cabinet, won the transMissouri Freight case and began other important cases. The Sherman law was almost as much in evidence in his day as it has been in Mr. Wickersham's. The Northern Securities case was won by Mr. Roosevelt's Attorney General and the Oil and Tobacco cases were started in his administration, though the decisions in these two cases do not satisfy him. Mr. Taft believes that these decisions have been effective.

Thus all the candidates give earnest of a vigorous intention to prevent business abuses and the evils of monopoly, though the methods of dealing with this subject are less settled and defined than the methods of dealing with the tariff.

Aside from the question of tariff reform and trust control comes the measure of these men by the standards of clean politics and the newer ideals which the agitation of the last decade has fostered. As governor of New Jersey, in spite of the machines of both parties, Mr. Wilson led the fight which gave New Jersey a new standard of political morals. In his administration a direct primary law, a corrupt practises act, a reformed election law, and a commission form of government act were passed. He is not tainted with the spoils system and he has a clean and forceful record of political achievement. Governor Harmon, also, has made a record for himself. He has cut off waste, increased efficiency, and saved money in the government of Ohio. Unlike Governor Wilson, however, he is not a believer in new forms. He prefers the old paths of politics with which he has long been familiar to blazing new ones.

Temperamentally, Mr. Taft, also, is

not a political pioneer. He was nominated in 1908 by a "steam roller" prepared by the Roosevelt administration. A steam roller means patronage. He seems likely to be nominated again by similar tactics.

Mr. Roosevelt on his return to politics is an ardent and sincere believer in the progressive policies of more direct popular rule. His voice stirred up much of the dissatisfaction with the old order of things. Yet he is a follower, not a leader, in advocating the measures of relief. More direct popular rule was not among the many policies which he set in motion during his Presidency. These "progressive" measures and the reform of the tariff have rather forced themselves upon him.

President Taft and Governor Harmon are the choice of that portion of the American people who are temperamentally conservative. Added to this disinterestedly conservative element are those who have had undue privileges in the past and do not wish them disturbed, and the bulk of the old party machines.

On the other side, for Wilson and Roosevelt are the many who believe that the "deal is not square" and who wish a more vigorous intention to make it nearer so than Mr. Taft or Mr. Harmon seem to display.

Yet in spite of all their differences these four candidates hold a more or less middle ground, for neither Mr. Taft nor Mr. Harmon is conservative enough for a good many men in their respective parties and Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roosevelt fall far short of the demands of the most radical. Mr. Roosevelt is perhaps the most radical of the four, Mr. Wilson next, then Mr. Taft, and Governor Harmon the most conservative.

THE OMINOUS RAILROAD OUT

followed the railroad agitation has made it plain that as soon as commerce begins to move in record volume, the railroad facilities of the country will break down. They are not prepared for it and it will be very hard for them to prepare for it, for the investors of the world are not ready to finance the needed improvements in our great transportation machine.

It is the consensus of opinion not only of railroad men themselves, but of bankers, students, economists both American and European, that the mere maintenance of the present standard of service will call for at least $1,000,000,000 a year of capital for the next five years. Moreover, the present equipment would utterly fail to give service in any trade revival of considerable importance. Unless, therefore, the facilities are increased our railroads, of which we have been prone to boast in the past, will be the most powerful brake upon the industry of the country for some years to come. And the facilities are not likely to be adequately increased, for we have reached a point where the credit of American railroads is falling in the markets of the world. It would probably be almost impossible during the next few years to finance such an era of expansion as the Pennsylvania Railroad financed, for instance, between 1901 and 1906, or as the Union Pacific financed during the same years. Two of the big trunk lines of the East are to-day almost beggars in the markets of the world, and if there is any further strain we shall probably see within a year or two some of our best and oldest main line roads paying from 6 to 7 per cent. for money.

Already, one of the strong old railroads of the Middle West has been forced to close temporarily its best issue of bonds and has come into the market to pay well up to 5 per cent. for money. And the best railroad bonds of the country are to-day less stable than at almost any other period in our financial history. Some of the most careful students of events are inclined to turn from them to other classes of investments.

The railroads in new and rapidly growing countries have a better chance to get credit than the railroads of the old and