HON. RICHARD F. PETTIGREW.

Born at Ludlow, Vermont, July, 1848; moved to Wisconsin, 1854; studied at Beloit College, 1865-66; member of law class of Wisconsin University, 1870; moved to Dakota, 1869; engaged in surveying and real estate at Sioux Falls; practiced law since 1872; elected to Dakota Legislature, 1877 and 1879; elected Territorial delegate to 47th Congress; re-elected to Legislature, 1884-85; member of South Dakota Constitutional Convention, 1883; elected U. S. Senator, as a Republican, from South Dakota, October 16, 1889; chairman of Quadro-Centennial Committee, and member of Committees on Improvement of Mississippi River, Indian Affairs, Public Lands and Railroads; re-elected to Senate in 1895.

Born at Foster, R. I., November 6, 1841. Academically educated; engaged in mercantile pursuits; President of Providence Common Council, 1871-73; member of State Assembly, 1875-76; Speaker of House of Representatives in 1876; elected to Congress for 46th and 47th Congresses; elected, as Republican, to United States Senate, 1880; re-elected, 1886 and 1893; rose to prominence as advocate of Protection; authority in party and Senate on matters pertaining to Tariff Legislation; conspicuous in preparation and adoption of Tariff act of 1890; Chairman of Committee on Rules and member of Committees on Finance and Transportation.

ports, lest inferior nations should acquire the skill of the mother country. There is no historic record of a protective system so extreme in its conditions and so arbitrarily applied as that of Great Britain, if we exclude the despotic system of China.

Says McCullough in his Commercial Dictionary: :- It was a leading principle in the colonial policy, adopted as well by England as by other European nations, to discourage all attempts to manufacture such articles in the colonies as could be provided for them in the mother country."

Says Bancroft in his "History of the United States" :"England in its relation with other states sought a convenient tariff. In the colonies it prohibited industry."

In 1699 the British Parliament enacted that no wool, yarn, cloth, or woollen manufactures of the English Plantations in America should be shipped from any of said Plantations, or otherwise laden, in order to be transported thence to any place whatsoever, under a penalty of forfeiting both ship and cargo, and a fine of $2500 for each offence.

In 1732 Parliament prohibited the exportation of hats from province to province (colony to colony) in America, and limited the number of apprentices to be taken by hatters.

In 1750 the Parliament prohibited as a common nuisance the erection of any mill in America for slitting or rolling iron, or any plating forge to work with a tilt-hammer, or furnace for making steel. The penalty for such crime was $1000.

A little later an Act was passed prohibiting the making of nails in the province of Pennsylvania.

About the same time Lord Chatham announced it as his opinion of colonial dependence that the American colonies ought not to be permitted to make even a hob-nail or horse

AMERICAN RECIPROCITY-AN HISTORIC

REVIEW.

GENERAL VIEW.

THE idea, or rather the doctrine, of reciprocal trade is by no means new. As a principle it has been long recognized in this country. In England it is what is called "Fair. Trade," and is upheld by a school of economists and statesmen who oppose "Free Trade," or seek to escape from the effects of "Free Trade," by a system which shall not be one-sided only.

The doctrine, pure and simple, is this, if a nation does not impose duties on our goods entering its ports, we will not impose duties on its goods entering our ports; and if a nation levies duties on our goods, we will levy duty on its goods.

This, say fair-traders, is but the doctrine of lex talionis, tit-for-tat, as applied to trade. This, say free-traders, is the folly of imposing a double loss on ourselves. Thus, foreigners tax our products when they enter their ports. This imposes a loss on us. Then, in turn, we tax their products when entering our ports. This imposes a second loss on us. They say, that for an injury done us by others, we fine ourselves. When others impoverish us, we respond by a system of impoverishment.

Protectionists eschew theories and refinements, and say that each country is a law unto itself respecting trade. `All prosperous countries have been built on this principle. All recognize it in one way or another, whatever their outward professions, or present economic leanings. It is but the

duty of caring for one's self. It is but the right to live, and tò enjoy advantages, if such exist.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

Reciprocity has for ages been established and determined between nations by means of commercial treaties. The usual process has been for two nations, about to treat, to consult their respective tariff lists, and to grant reductions of duties on the class of goods which they desire most to receive from each other. Equally, each country seeks to secure the lowest rate of duty on the class of goods whose manufacture constitutes its own industry, and whose sale abroad it wishes to cultivate. Thus, England makes the best bargain she can for the foreign sale of her hardware and cottons, France for her silks and wines, Belgium for her iron products, the United States for her flour and meat. The free-trade countries of the world are the most prolific of reciprocity treaties, yet there never was a reciprocity treaty that did not recognize the doctrine of protection, else it would have been of no use. The essence of all commercial treaties is home-trade advantage, home-industry advantage, home-development advantage, whether directly by encouragement to labor and capital on the spot, or indirectly by reason of enlarged markets abroad.

Says Leveleye, one of the ablest of French Political Economists, and a pronounced free-trader:-" Commercial treaties are useful in assuring to industry what is so essential to it, the fixity of foreign customs dues throughout the period embraced by the treaty. Nowadays commercial treaties are of more importance than political treaties, for it is on commercial treaties that the progress of industry in each country in a great measure depends, and also what is no less im