termural migration is incessant, than in Philadelphia, where the people, to an almost unparalleled degree, live in their own houses, and where movement within the city is exceptional.

The liability to error in a census of the United States, as a whole, is to-day many fold what it was forty years ago. If one is disposed to ask why, let him consider not only the changes wrought in the proportion between city and rural populations in that time; not only the changes in city populations themselves as to their modes of living; but the astonishing dimensions to which the annual movement from city to country in May and June, and from country to city in October and November, has recently attained. Let him contemplate the great Summer cities which have been built up all along our coasts, the hundreds of hotels and boarding-houses among the mountains, the thousands of Summer villas along the rivers and upon the lakes, which are occupied only in Summer; and he will find no difficulty in accepting the statement that has been made.

To the professional statistician the only thoroughly satisfactory census is one which makes a de facto enumeration of the population at the very best time that can be taken for that purposea census that takes an instantaneous photograph of the people as they are at a given moment; but the political reasons which have given form to the United States census are likely long to prevent the introduction of such a style of enumeration among us. It may come about in time that the people, out of patience with the inevitable errors of the traditional census, and weary with the quarrels and recriminations between States and cities necessarily attendant upon it, will unanimously agree to waive the theoretical objections to the photographic method, as possibly, probably, and in some degree certainly, affecting unequally the basis of representation, and will accept the latter system as good enough for political purposes, and as vastly more satisfactory from all other points of view.

19

FRANCIS A. WALKER.

RECIPROCITY-WHY SOUTHWARD ONLY?

ALL trade is advantageous to those engaged in its exchanges.

Without

It is profitable to him that sells and to him that buys. this reciprocity of benefit trade could not exist. The sum of its benefits is in proportion to the value of the articles exchanged, and depends upon the presence or the absence of obstructions in the way between consumer and producer. If obstructions, either natural or artificial, should prevent all trade, domestic and foreign, civilization would be extinguished and human life would go out with it. The converse also is true. If no obstructions, either natural or artificial, should exist, prosperity would touch its highest possible point, and civilization would attain its highest possible development. The mutual profits derived from trade are not restricted to any particular articles nor confined to any particular country. They are not controlled by degrees of latitude, of longitude, or of altitude. Trade is the same in the It owes no allegiance

frigid, the temperate, and the torrid zone. to any king, prince, potentate, or power; and yet it is the surest and best supporter of all. It speaks a universal language which, like that once heard at Pentecost, is understood by every people in its own tongue. Wherever it goes-north, south, east, or west; at home or abroad-its message is "On earth, peace; good will toward men."

Many of our statesmen have been deeply impressed with the conviction that though trade at home is a benefit, foreign trade is an unmixed evil, and that to prevent it the oceans should be set on fire, and our sailors should all be hanged rather than be permitted to engage in this hurtful traffic. It is gratifying to see the relaxation of this ironclad idea, even to a very limited extent. This relaxation is one of the happy results of "the campaign of education," whereby the country is now thoroughly aroused. The Executive and the Department of State have impressed upon the attention of Congress and of the country the great

importance of free trade, in certain articles, with Mexico, Cuba, Central America, and South America. They are thoroughly convinced that it would be mutually advantageous for us to take, free of tax, the sugar, coffee, tea, molasses, and hides produced in these countries, and for them to take from us agricultural implements, machinery, locomotives, steel rails, structural iron and steel, and railway cars.

This particular kind of reciprocity was intended to procure a market for "another bushel of wheat and another barrel of pork." It is a breach in the walls which have been so long e ected around the home market. It was made necessary in order to quiet the discontent of the Republican farmers of the West, who, confronted with starvation, have become unpleasantly active.

When this change of base was resolved upon by the Administration, a provision to carry it into effect was sent to Congress, to be engrafted on the tariff bill. By this provision it was proposed to admit free of duty all products of any country in "the American hemisphere," whenever such country should admit our breadstuffs, provisions, and certain enumerated articles of manufacture on the same terms. But this was soon discovered to be rather too bold a display of the net in the sight of the birds. Too much prominence was given to locomotives, to steel rails, and to structural iron and steel. When the provision was incorporated in the bill, therefore, the specific language was changed, and it now reads, "agricultural and other products." Locomotives, steel rails, structural iron, and other articles of manufacture are concealed under the name of "other products."

This reciprocity with the southern countries is advanced for the benefit of our farmers, to open more markets for breadstuffs and provisions. If its advocates are sincere in wanting to find larger markets for agricultural products, why do they not move for reciprocity with Europe instead of with South America? Europe takes from us more than $600,000,000 in agricultural products yearly, which is sixty times as much as the southern countries take. If reciprocity with South America would increase our exports 50 per cent.-and it probably would-it would open a market for $5,000,000 more of farm products, and similar

son.

results, following from reciprocity with Europe, would increase our exports of farm products by $300,000,000. Now, if the farmer is the person to be benefited, we must look eastward, not southward, for markets. The best markets for farm products are not to be found among agricultural, but among manufacturing, mining, and mercantile communities. A nation of farmers offers the best market to manufacturers, and it is for that reason that reciprocity with the agricultural countries of the South is so earnestly sought. The "other products" will get the benefits, and the farmers, as usual, will receive all the compliments of the seaWe are able now to produce an annual surplus of agricultural products, valued at $1,000,000,000, but we could not find a market for it in the countries of the western hemisphere if we should have full reciprocity with them all. It is not to the 50,000,000 shepherds and farmers to the south of us, but to the 300,000,000 shopkeepers to the east of us, that we must look to consume our surplus farm products. While the Administration is pressing for free trade with the South, it is pressing equally hard for no trade at all with the East. Fifty millions of farmers south of us, keeping up a protective tariff against all other countries, and letting in our manufactures free, would open markets for the consumption of many millions of our manufactures, and would add millions to the fortunes of the makers of locomotives, steel rails, and structural iron; but the benefits to the American farmer would not be perceptible.

If our neighbors to the south of us could be induced to keep up their tariffs against the manufactures of all other people and to admit ours free, our manufacturers would get the benefit of their protective duties and would plunder their people as mercilessly as our own are now plundered. The proposition for reciprocal free trade between them and us is a proposition to extend the protective system of our country over theirs. It is a proposition to them to give up the revenues that they raise by duties on imports, and to permit our manufacturers to collect such revenues for their own private benefit. Mr. Blaine, from the beginning of the agitation, had this object in view; and when his party friends hesitated to accept the new departure, he was compelled to tell them that it was not free trade at all, but protection, whose area

he was extending and whose hold he was strengthening. The cry, "Home markets for home products," has been abandoned by protectionists, and they are now demanding foreign markets for home products; but they refuse the home market to those foreign products that our people want.

Our best markets will be found among people who want agricultural products and who can give us what we want in exchange for them. Of all our exports, 75 per cent. are agricultural products, and the proportion has been as large as this through our whole history. Our foreign trade must depend upon the markets of those who do not, and not upon the markets of those who do, produce these articles at home in sufficient quantities to satisfy their own wants. We should enlarge, as far as we can, all markets for all products, and not lock up our agricultural products while throwing wide the gates for the export of manufactures. Moreover, in all things we should deal frankly with the people. We should not call a steel rail a bushel of wheat, or a locomotive a barrel of pork. The markets of the South would be very valuable to our manufacturers, and we ought to do all we can to secure them; but we should not secure them for the benefit of monopolies, but for the benefit of all our people. The right way to secure them is to produce our goods at less cost and to carry them and offer them for sale. We can produce them at less cost by removing all taxes from the materials that are used in making them. This policy would open the foreign market for our goods and enlarge the domestic market; for our best market is the home market, and it is a good or a bad market just in proportion to the amount and value of the surplus that we export. Our prosperity depends five times as much upon our exports of agricultural products as upon our exports of manufactured products, and the benefit to the farmer of free trade with the southern countries would be practically nothing. It is the interest of the protected manufacturer that points southward. The interest of the unprotected farmer points eastward. We must open wider the markets of the East for our farm products, or our farmers will sound a still greater depth of distress. The Administration asks that the markets of the manufacturer shall be expanded, but that the markets of the farmer shall be contracted. Wise statesmanship asks