mental to the world in general, both to the producers and consumers.

In order fully to

confirm Mr. Rowlett's

words with regard to the ruin of thousands of people caused by the manipulations of unscrupulous gamblers in wool, cotton, iron, copper, wheat, sugar, etc," I am in a position to give the names of hundreds of the richest and most influential British firms established in Great Britain and in its colonies, who, since 1875, have either failed, been partially ruined, or have been forced to curtail or retire from their business, in order to save their "financial necks," simply because they acknowledged, as Mr. Rowlett puts it, they could not stoop to the nefarious proceedings the unscrupulous gambler does to accomplish his purpose," and consequently could not compete with him under these swindling systems.

own

แ

Such a state of affairs must be a sad blow to British trade and to British labour, as well as be a direct cause of ruin to the nation at large.

For, as Mr. Chamberlain put it in his speech at Birmingham on November 3rd, 1905: "The balance of trade gets greater and greater against us. Who is it that loses by this? Is it the rich? Not necessarily at all, they may continue to make more money than ever-by financial operations, by carrying their works abroad, and by other devices. The people who lose are the working people of the country.'

While, with regard to the rise in values in wool, etc., as referred to later on, he said: "But as to

this rise, he (Mr. Asquith) has not looked below the surface, he does not tell you that it is due to temporary causes and mainly to an increase in the price of raw materials which does not help labour one bit, since the raw materials do not come from this country, but from foreign countries which enjoy any benefit which the rise in prices can bring."

Exactly so; and I can also point out that neither does Mr. Chamberlain look below the surface for the causes of this or of other rises, which are solely unnatural and due to gambling operations, as I shall presently demonstrate; while, another important point that both Mr. Asquith and Mr. Chamberlain missed in their press-wrangle over the Board of Trade Returns, in connection with these rises, is, that no comparison of figures, under these systems, is any criterion of the prosperity or the reverse of the nation.1

For, although these returns may show, for example, on the face of them, larger figures in comparison to former years, due to these "unnatural" rise in prices, it is this very fact which in itself is causing heavy losses to British manufacturers and users; while all men will support me in the statements that under these systems smaller profits are now being made with a larger turnover, and that larger profits and more certain ones were made on a smaller turnover before they were introduced.

Now, owing to the "corners," or to the result of corners, in wool and in cotton, as referred to in

1 See Appendix, Notes 1 and 19; also pp. 62-65 of author's first volume of this book (1904).

Mr. Rowlett's statement, Great Britain has had to pay in 1904, in comparison to 1902, three millions extra cost for its raw wool and eleven millions extra cost for its raw cotton. In other words, fourteen millions sterling was paid by Lancashire, Cheshire, and Yorkshire for the extra cost of their raw materials.

Also, owing to the late sugar corners," British jam and other manufacturers have had to pay many millions extra cost for their raw sugars. Add to these the result of the various corners in cotton since 1900, and the total extra cost for these three commodities alone would tally up to some forty millions or more, which loss has been distributed over British manufacturers, users, and consumers.

And then we hear Mr. Chamberlain and his supporters pretend to express blank astonishment and regret that British traders cannot compete with foreigners, that British trade is falling off or not expanding in the same ratio as the German and other trades are, and that the British working man is out of employment and that pauperism and starvation is on the increase!!

All this extra cost for raw materials, arising from unnaturally high prices, is "artificial" and solely due, directly or indirectly, to international gambling operations in "options and futures," or marches à terme contracts, in "fictitious" commodities; all of which, whether it applies to iron, copper, tin, textile fabrics, sugar, foodstuffs, or to any other. raw material, means, that the working classes are being indirectly "taxed" to the extent of from 20

up to 100 per cent. over and above what the "natural" prices ought to be if such " corners did not exist.

And I venture to express the opinion that, if the working classes were only aware what were the swindling causes for them, they would rise to a man and demand the government of the day to suppress the "systems," by which these extra costs for raw materials are "artificially" raised against them.

While, the latest international aspects of the "world's" wool and cotton "corners" in 1905, are, that with regard to the former, the international "bears" seem to be at the tender mercy of the "bulls," both in the Antwerp, Havre, and other Continental markets.

With regard to cotton, comes the announcement from the President of the United States Southern Cotton Association of another world's Convention to be held in 1906, between representatives of Lancashire, Continental Europe, the New England States, and other parts of America, "for the purpose of establishing closer relations, to safeguard their interests from wild. speculation, and for fixing stable prices for cotton."

At the International Cotton Congress, held in Paris, on November 13th, 1905, and attended by representatives from France, England, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Belgium, with the object of "avoiding pitfalls to the cotton industry of the world brought about by the actions of speculators and for the protection of the legitimate interests of the cotton

trade and the study of the means which will counteract the influences of gambling operations, which are detrimental to the welfare of both growers and consumers," various remedies were suggested, equally futile as the others previously proposed at former congresses, most of which I have already dwelt upon in a special chapter.

And what do these various congresses signify? Why, a declaration of war on behalf of cotton planters and users against the world's exchange and other cotton gamblers in "options and futures."

They further mean a declaration of war between the growers of cotton on one side and the users of the world on the other. For, while their interests are identical so far as the ruin done to both by these gambling systems are concerned, the former does not want any legislative steps taken, so long as these systems are in vogue, against the "bulls," while the users are in a similar position with regard to the "bears."

The growers want "artificial" dear cotton. The users want it to be "artificially" cheap.

As a powerful and late example of the former, the American Southern Cotton Association on November 16th (that is a few days after the above Congress) notify, "that they are perfecting plans for taking off the market three million bales of cotton, in order to defeat Mr. Theodore Price and others' latest international "bear" campaigns "; thus clearly proving the utter insincerity of one and all of these men, for the consumers and masses of the world are never taken into their consideration