these lower prices were for the wholesale trade alone, whereupon the New York World published a letter from the Engineering and Mining Journal, a paper which also paid special attention to the export trade. An extract from the letter, dated August 26, 1890, is as follows: "Your statement that the foreigner can buy at retail in this market cheaper than the domestic consumer is as indisputable as the daily revolution of the earth. We can enumerate any number of instances where houses have written us, Prices furnished are for export only, and it would be most injurious to us if these figures were circulated in the home market.""

In a speech delivered a few months ago before the Foundrymen's Association of Philadelphia, Mr. A. B. Farquhar, a large manufacturer of agricultural tools, testified to the conditions which exist to-day. He says: "We must see at a glance that there are a great many products of manufacturing industries in this country which, whatever may have been their need of protection heretofore, most certainly do not nced it to-day. In the ten months ending with April last, the country exported $276,000,000 worth of manufactures, nearly 18 per cent more than the corresponding ten months of 1897 and 1898. This amount considerably exceeding that of our import of manufactured goods for the same period, covering a wide range of products, conclusively proves that we have nothing to fear from foreign manufactures. Yet a duty is still demanded on these very products, and why? Not for revenue, because the government gets no revenue from such duties, but to enable the combinations that monopolize their production to exact higher prices in this country than they can obtain abroad, and for no other reason. The Sugar Trust, with its rebates to encourage exportation and its high protective duty to keep up the price of its products within the country, thus favored by the law in two directions; the steel rail combine, which sends its product to all quarters of the globe (one mill recently shipping 70,000 tons of rails for the North China Railway), and put them down at the very doors of the British shops, while at the same time a Boston Company finds it cheaper to get rails from England and pay the duty than to buy at the terms allowed at home. These and many other associations, all profiting handsomely by legislative favoritism, tempt us to appeal to the law not to lay its hand upon them in any way directly, but only to lift from us the hand with which it holds us down in order to give the monopolies advantage."

I believe we have passed the point where any objection can be raised to the abolition of protective duties on the ground that

they sustain or raise wages. Years ago we had the testimony of Mr. Evarts and Mr. Blaine that American labor was the cheapest in the world, and received the smallest share of its own product. We have grown great in manufacturing because we have the most skilled labor and the best material with which to work. The truth is that the tariff, by shutting out foreign competition, enables the trusts to shut down domestic factories, employ less labor, and thereby reduce wages. Mills make money by shutting down instead of by the production of goods.

Of course consumers suffer. That is why this conference was called. Professor Maas, formerly chemical expert of the Glucose Sugar Refining Company, testified before the Industrial Commission that the price of Glucose was doubled as soon as the trust was formed and the glucose plant worth $6,000,000 was capitalized at forty.

The National Glass Budget on July 22d said editorially: "Manufacturers have, through the strength of their combination, succeeded in raising and maintaining prices to an extent that would have been considered dangerous and ruinous to the industry if it had resulted directly from an advance of wages enforced by the workers' organization, but having been the result of a closer union among manufacturers, the thing is very different, and the increased influx of foreign glass, stimulated by high prices of domestic, with which conference committee men have for decades threatened the workers, has, strangely, not materialized, but in spite of all that the workers are economically in a worse position to enforce an advance than they have been for many years."

The Independent, of Forest City, Iowa, reports that, "The Indiana Wire Fence Company of Crawfordsville has been absorbed by the American Steel and Wire Company, and its buildings now stand deserted. The fence factory was Crawfordsville's chief industry. The product became known all over the country, and the demand increased so that the factory was enlarged almost weekly. There were regularly employed about seventy-five men, sometimes more than that number, nearly all of whom have families. The pay-rolls for labor alone amounted to nearly $52,000 a year, about every dollar of which was spent in Crawfordsville." The company did not wish to sell out to the trust, but was threatened that the trust would cut prices so low that they would be forced out of business, and the sale was made on January 23, 1899. The account continues: "Then the blow fell upon Crawfordsville. The men were thrown out of employment. Most of them had gone into building and loan associations, had bor

rowed money, and were building themselves homes. They could not meet their payments. Their homes were taken away from them and they left the city. There was no work for them here. Clerks and salesmen lost their positions and every branch of business felt this blow."

It is sometimes said: "Law made trusts, and law can unmake them." I believe this is absolutely true, but I think it commonly conveys a wrong impression. Law has made trusts by conferring special privileges, and those privileges can be abolished. The chief privilege, and the one most easily reached, is the tariff. Let no one imagine that corporations, which are creatures of law, are the only trusts, for secret agreements between individuals have been effective to control supply and raise prices without a single corporation being involved.

The doctrine of laissez faire has been much abused, and it is common to hear that it has failed. It has never yet been tried. It does not mean, "Let things alone as they are," but "Clear the road and let them alone." Clear away every special privilege. Then, and not till then, can we know whether any restriction is necessary. While special privileges remain, attempts to restrain combination will be futile.

Trusts have little dread of statute law which the courts will take years to interpret. They fear the repeal of privilege, and "Repeal" should be the battle cry of those who believe in equal rights before the law.

BYRON W. HOLT.

New England Free Trade League.

Byron W. Holt spoke on "Tariff, the Mother of Trusts":

When H. O. Havemeyer last June startled the country with the declaration before the Industrial Commission that "The Mother of All Trusts is the Customs Tariff Bill," he came so near to telling the truth that the protectionist organs of the country immediately began calling him names and saying "sour grapes," and the organ of the Protective Tariff League is still devoting a large portion of its space to the wicked, traitorous Havemeyer. If he had said special privileges, of which the tariff is foremost, are the mother of trusts, he would have been still nearer to the truth.

That the tariff, by shielding our manufacturers from foreign