Increased Prices in Europe.

Hungary is complaining of the high prices of meat, which are said to be greater there than elsewhere in Europe, although the country is largely devoted to agriculture. Consul-General Nash says that the price of meat has advanced throughout the whole of Europe, but in Hungary one would expect to find the minimum prices instead of the maximum, as now prevail. The consul-general gives the increase per hundred pounds in the wholesale price of beef in one year as $1.06 in Berlin; $1.15 in Paris; $1.44 in Vienna, and $1.97 in Budapest. There was a similar proportionate increase in other kinds of meats.

The Democrats have been seeking to mislead voters in the United States into the belief that the increase in the price of meat in this country is altogether due to the Tariff. As the increase has been world-wide, there is no truth in that statement, though it is on a par with similar assertions in regard to other commodities. As a matter of fact, meat is much less in the United States in price than in Free-Trade Great Britain.

Prices of commodities in England, as compiled by A. Sauerbeck, a well-known authority, show that the advance in food has been considerable, and in "materials" a general advance of 42 per cent. at the end of 1910, as compared with the preceding year. And that was in a FreeTrade country where a very large proportion of the people are demanding a Tariff in order to increase the price of the products they sell and also to increase the remuneration to labor. Wages have advanced in the United States while they have declined in the United Kingdom, another illustration of the effect of Protection in behalf of the working man.

Champ Clark's Superstition.

The "Tribune" prints a Washington dispatch illustrative of the kind of a man Champ Clark, the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, is to guide the destinies of that party. There was a proposition before the Democrats to increase the membership of the Ways and Means Committee, but it was found that the number of members would then be thirteen, whereupon Mr. Clark said: "I admit I am afraid of the number thirteen. Why, in St. Louis, a little while ago, I had a party of friends at dinner and when we sat down I saw there were thirteen at the table. I went out and got the first man I could find to sit down with us." A man who would bow in that way to the superstition about the number thirteen is evidently the right kind of a man to lead the Free-Trade Democratic party to destruction.

Reciprocity Troubles.

Reports from Washington vary as to the probability of the success of the reciprocity negotiations with Canada, but it would appear that there is very little hope of any wide measure of reciprocity being agreed upon. The success of the Democrats at the recent election, and their promise of a Tariff for revenue only, encourages a good many of our friends in Canada to believe that they will accomplish more by waiting for the Democrats to come into control of the Government.

The great obstacle to reciprocity is the refusal of Canada to make concessions on manufactured products. As Premier Laurier has repeatedly declared, Canada wants reciprocity confined to natural products, and there can be no such thing as reciprocity under such restrictions. Canada could sell its agricultural products in the United States, but the natural products of this country could not be sold in Canada. Hence manufactured products must be included to accomplish anything like reciprocity.

Manufacturers of Canada are strongly opposed to any reciprocity which would involve their products, and the farmers of the United States, particularly along the border, are making it clear that they will not accept willingly any reciprocity with Canada on agricultural products. In this situation there is little prospect of any successful negotiation. But such failure will not involve any loss to the United States.

Tariff Commission Bill In Doubt.

The gathering in Washington to promote the passage of a bill to create a Tariff Commission does not appear to have accomplished much. Two years' work on the part of Mr. Miles and some other persons who have private interests to serve in the passage of such a measure explains the gathering. The Journal of Commerce tells of the result as follows:

There is an unmistakable attitude of doubt, distrust and i will among members of Congress. Members now recognize that they will have to vote for a commission bill if the issue is brought to a head. Nevertheless the old line Republicans are quite as strong as ever they were in their opposition. One of the fairerminded of the old line men in conversation expresses his view about as follows: "I shall vote for the commission bill if the issue comes up because I think the public has got into a frame of mind which demands it. But I do not believe that anything whatever can be accomplished by such a commission. I believe it will prove a profound disappointment to those who have agitated for its creation, and the effect of such a reaction in public opinion will be bad, as it always is. As for the ascertainment of the cost of production, the action is utterly absurd. As a business man I know that nothing of the sort can be obtained, and if it could, such a body would not be likely to get it in any case." It is this attitude of hostility and distrust that greatly weakens the cause of the commission at the Capital, because it indicates that there will be no thoroughgoing discussion and that whatever is done will be perfunctory.

Senator Bailey, the Democratic leader in the Senate, says that he will filibuster, if necessary, to defeat the measure. He could easily accomplish that end, as the appropriation bills must be passed before March 4. But he has the promised assistance of Senators Culberson and Money. The success of the measure, under such circumstances, appears improbable.

A Merchant Marine Congress.

A "National Merchant Marine Congress" is to meet in Washington on January 23 to forward legislation to promote the merchant marine. The object is stated to be as follows:

This will be a non-partisan Congress called in the interest of the common good. Attention will be focussed upon a single object, namely, the passage of an ocean mail measure by the present Congress. Consequently all collateral questions, such as construction subsidies, free ships, discrim inatory duties and the like, will be excluded from discussion.

We shall urge Congress to pass without further delay an ocean mail bill, which will authorize the Post Office Department to apply the revenues received on account of foreign postage toward securing ocean mail service in American built ships flying the American flag and available in time of need for naval use with those regions where ocean mail facilities are now must inadequate, viz.: South America, South Africa, Australasia and the Orient.

The need of legislation to promote the merchant marine cannot be questioned. Something should be done.

The Democrats, by a gathering of members-elect of the next House of Representatives in Washington, are trying to lay out a programme of Tariff legislation that will fulfill the promises they made in the last canvass. But their road is full of pitfalls. If they seek to defer legislation they cannot hope even to present the country with a definite plan of procedure. And if they attempt to do what they promised, defeat at the polls is almost certain. They are between "the devil and the deep sea."

In sending out advance copies of Professor Emery's speech before the Tariff Commission meeting in Washington it was stated that 700 delegates were present. That has been printed widely over the country without coming anywhere near the truth. But that is the way anti-Tariff advocates carry on their agitation-by misrepresentation.

Mr. Pinchot wants the president to proceed in the Cunningham coal cases in Alaska regardless of law; but the president does not do business that way. Pinchot needs to think more and talk less; then he will not say so many foolish things about the Tariff and other matters that do not happen to meet his approval. If he knew more about them he would be less anxious to put his crude ideas into operation.

China as a Competitor.

The development of China as a manufacturing country is the subject of an interesting article by Henry Cyer, D. Sc., in the Glasgow Herald's annual review. He points out that China is gradually imitating Japan and other countries in the way of developing her industries and protecting her foreign trade. Nearly a century ago Napoleon said that "When China moves she will change the face of the globe." China is moving now, as this writer states, and seems determined to bring herself into line with the other nations of the world. The foreign commerce of the country has been gradually increasing and promises to become, in the not distant future, of vast importance.

Sir Robert Hart, the Englishman, who was for so many years in charge of the Chinese customs administration, recently issued a warning to foreign nations not to become too sanguine in expectation of China becoming a great consumer of their products. He pointed out that it should be remembered not only that China was originally self-contained and self-satisfied, but that she is now embarking on a manufacturing era. With an estimated population of 400,000,000 interprovincial trade is large enough in itself. Foreign trade is a luxury, and not a necessity, and if it continues to grow the Chinese will control it, and in time will compete with foreign goods not only in China but elsewhere. They are doing that already. The steel works established near Hankow are already exporting rails, and pig iron has been exported to the United States with a promise of increasing quantities coming to this country under the reduced Tariff on that product.

With the low wages prevailing in China and under the instruction of foreign experts, the Chinese can become formidable competitors, and it will require high Tariff rates to exclude their products.

For a considerable time the Chinese were hostile to foreign railways, but under the influence of the foreign governments their construction was undertaken by foreign capitalists. Now, however, these railroads are being recognized as the best auxiliary for national defence, and for the development of national resources, and the Chinese government is now insisting on undivided control of all new enterprises of that kind; in other words, they want such roads to be in Chinese hands. And that indicates their policy in future in regard to manufacturing enterprises. Foreign experts are simply employees of the Chinese government. The merchant marine of China is developing and is gradually falling more and more into the hands of Chinese capitalists, who are keen business men. There can be hardly any doubt that China will

in time become a great manufacturing nation.

The United States will have to take a more aggressive course if it is to hold a fair share of the Chinese trade. For eleven months ending with November last our exports to China were in value $14,520,101, as compared with about $20,990,697 in the corresponding time in 1908, but imports from China were in value $30,514,932, as compared with $20,359,144 in 1908. Exports to China decline each year while imports therefrom increase. This is a situation not encouraging to the United States. We are losing our steamship service on the Pacific, which is passing into the hands of Japan and other countries, and we are losing in our trade with the Oriental countries in general. Every step taken in the United States toward lower Tariff seems to help our Oriental competitors. Unless we protect our shipping as well as our home industries, this situation will grow worse.

The Free Raw Material Theory.

Raw materials that cannot be produced in the United States, if necessary to American manufacturers, should be on the free list, as is the case now. But raw materials that can be produced in this country without any increased cost other than is imposed by the higher wages prevailing here, should be Protected.

Iron ore is a socalled raw material. But the cost of the ore depends on the wages paid to the miner and to those engaged in transporting it, and in caring for it generally. Those wages are over 100 per cent. greater in the United States than in Spain, Cuba and other producing countries. That is why the importation of iron ore has increased nearly 400 per cent. under the new Tariff, which reduced the duty from 40 to 15 cents per ton.

If there is a monopoly in control of - any such raw material, that is a good reason for placing it on the free list, unless the price can be regulated by law. But there is no monopoly on iron ore, or of bituminous coal, and various other articles which the Democrats want placed on the free list. If that were done it would greatly injure American labor engaged in the production of such articles.

It is to the credit of Senator Bailey, of Texas, and some other prominent Democrats that they oppose this free raw material theory when it interferes with products in which their constituents are interested in producing. There should be no selfish limitation of this Tariff Protection. The man producing iron ore is as much entitled to Protection as is the manufacturer of steel. That is the policy of the Republican party, and it is the only method of properly developing the industries of the United States.

TARIFF COMMISSION DOUBTFUL.

Strong Opposition in Congress Changing Views of the President and Others.

Correspondence AMERICAN ECONOMIST. WASHINGTON, January 19.-It is coming to be a question whether, after all the efforts that have been made by those who sympathize with the movement for a permanent Tariff Commission, anything will be accomplished at the present session of Congress, which shall save to President Taft's administration even the Tariff board which is his own creation. This is said with all due respect to the efforts President Taft has made and is making, and the prodigious effort that was put forth here during the past week by representatives of certain commercial and industrial organizations in the country, who held a convention here to promote the cause of a permanent Tariff Commission. Nothwithstanding all these efforts, it is doubtful if the proposition is to be taken seriously by Congress. Indeed, there are broad intimations from some influential Democratic authorities in both Houses that nothing in the way of a Tariff board or commission stands a chance of being considered in the present session, and that it will die for want of funds to carry on its work. This last proposition is squarely in line with the Democratic opposition to "government by commissions."

The Dalzell Plan.

The developments of the past week on the Tariff Commission subject included the presentation in the House of Representatives, by Mr. Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, ranking Republican member of the Ways and Means Committee, of a Tariff board bill which those who oppose the "commission" idea will attempt to have passed, if serious consideration of the subject shall be given at this session. Mr. Dalzell's bill does not go to the great lengths that are covered by the Longworth bill, which was presented a week ago. The Dalzell bill creates the Tariff board as a division in the Treasury Department and limits the board membership to the present number. Nothing is taken from the powers now exercised by the board, but nothing is added to it, and the only change proposed in the methods is that the board shall report to the President or to the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee of the House when requested to do so.

The appearance of the Dalzell bill and the activities of the so-called Tariff Commission Association, which held a convention here during the week, at which speeches were made in advocacy of an enlarged commission with powers intended to make it permanent, were the chief features of the Tariff Commission agitation of the past few days.

Shifting of Positions Noted.

It is interesting to note, in connection with these activities, that there appears to

be an undue amount of "wabbling" among the conspicuous leaders in this Tariff Commission enterprise. President Taft, in his annual message to Congress in December, placed himself on record as favoring the Tariff board plan as it exists, and he did not ask for additional powers. The President stated that in his opinion the board was organized to accomplish results desired and all that was really needed was assurance of funds for carrying on such investigation as the board was created to make. Professor Emery, chairman of the Tariff board, doubtless taking his cue from President Taft's annual message, declared in his Chicago speech that the continuation of the present work, along the lines mapped out, was all that ought reasonably to be expected.

It was disclosed, however, during the discussion of the subject here during the past week that under the influence of continued agitation by the so-called Tariff Commission Association, President Taft took new grounds and came out in what amounted practically to advocacy of the Longworth bill. This latest attitude of President Taft on the subject is all the more interesting in view of the current reports here that he has given what amounted to an endorsement of the Dalzell bill as being squarely in line with the recommendations made in his annual message. It is not improbable that President Taft is becoming unduly excited by the prospect that the whole scheme may fail in Congress, and he shifts positions from time to time in order to satisfy the warring elements on this proposition. Professor Emery, in his address before the Tariff Commission Association, went pretty nearly as far as did Senators Cummins, Beveridge, and others who have been long engaged in efforts to convince the country that the only sure and safe means of salvation for the nation rests in creating a permanent Tariff Commission.

Demand an Overpowering Commission. It is disclosed in the discussion of this subject that the principal reason lying at the base of this movement for a Tariff Commission is the hope and expectation of the promoters of the movement that a commission shall be created of such stupendous magnitude and influence that Congress would not contemplate for a moment ignoring any recommendations such board might make. In fact, there are evidences that many of the advocates of Tariff-making by commission really desire to take the power of making Tariff laws out of the hands of Congress, and make such commission the last word in determining what Tariff duties shall be and what revenues are to be derived from that source. This is another evidence of what many men have come to notice in recent years, the "mad desire for government by commission." In fact, the proposition was advanced, in all seriousness, by a member of the United States Senate, during the

deliberations of the Tariff Commission Convention here, that a Tariff Commission be created with all the powers of initiative and control in Tariff matters that are enjoyed and exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission in determining the reasonableness or unreasonableness of freight rates.

What Would the Fathers Have Said?

It would be interesting to know what the fathers of the American government, such as Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and others, would have said of the proposition, if it had been advanced when this government was being organized, with the House of Representatives to initiate the revenue laws under the responsibility which popular government confers upon representatives chosen every two years by the people, that these great duties and responsibilities be conferred, not upon these representatives of the people, but upon an appointed body of salaried employees responsible to nobody except to the appointing power.

If it were not for the consuming desire among certain people to magnify the power and influence of a Tariff Commission, and who have come to indulge in discrediting attacks upon Congress, and are aided in so doing by "muckraking" writers, such idea would not receive the slightest consideration among thoughtful people. Admitting that it is desirable that Tariff making be surrounded by the best possible means of obtaining information, it ought readily to be understood that the executive departments of the Government, the Census Bureau and the Diplomatic and Consular officers in foreign fields, are able at any time to ascertain every possible fact connected with costs of production or other issues involved in the making of Tariff schedules.

Congress and Commissions.

The legislative power of the Government, under the terms of the Constitution, rests in Congress, and is not only to be exercised by Congress in revenue matters, but in the expenditure of public funds. It is not only absolutely impossible to expect that Congress, having charge of the raising of revenue, but also charge of the public expenditures, will accept at any time the findings of any commission, however great or influential, on the proposition whether the rate of duty, that constitutes a large factor in the means of raising revenue, shall be fixed at one figure or another. This, of course, entirely independent of any question whether Tariffs shall turn upon Protection lines, or upon "revenue only" lines, which is direct Free-Trade. ARTHUR J. Dodge.

"Lafe" Young's maiden speech indicates that Iowa has more than one idea.— Washington Post.

A Tariff that would please everybody wouldn't apply to anybody.-Washington Post.

WILL THE FARMERS BE MISLED.

Tariff Revisionists Seek to Reduce the Prices of Farm Products-A ShortSighted Policy.

Des Moines (Iowa) Capital.

Every voice now raised for Tariff revision is a voice against the farmer. The farmer has good prices.

The Tariff may not be changed on farm products, but the agitation itself is injuring the farmer more than it is injuring any other man.

If the State of Iowa sends a man to the United States Senate to help along the agitation for rapid changes in the Tariff, the State of Iowa will be aiding her own destruction.

Iowa is a farm State. Iowa produces the food for millions of people who are in shops and factories. If the men in shops and factories are not employed they cannot buy the Iowa farm produce. Talk in Congress throws men out of employment. No manufacturing State is neglecting its opportunities. Every New England State is demanding cheaper products from Canada with which to feed the working men. When Canada feeds the working men of New England, the Iowa farmers will not feed them. Canadian farm products are nearer to New England than are the Iowa products.

The selection of a Senator from Iowa may be a matter of faction at the present time, but if a low Tariff man is chosen, the farmers of Iowa will suffer. Low Tariff never produced good times in America and never will. The farmers ought to read the history of their country.

Not a voice is raised against anything but the agricultural schedule. The iron and steel schedule is forgotten, but people talk for lower schedules for beef and pork. Every man who goes to market with a basket and pays a high price for anything, without stopping to reason, damns the Tariff, while he owes his own employment to the Tariff. If we did not have a tariff, our importations would be so increased that American labor would be idle.

Yet men are elected to Congress on the sole issue of cutting down the Tariff in order to cut down the purchasing price.

Iowa is a seller, not a buyer. Iowa is a producer. It is a little strange that the people will forget these things in the heat of a political contest. It is a little singular that they become worshippers of men instead of advocates of principle.

Man worship may be a satisfactory thing. It may lead to applause. It may please somebody, but if it cuts into the business of the farmer, the farmer will soon turn from his man worship.

THE TARIFF IN BRITAIN.

No Change by the Election-Japan's High Rates-England's American

Investments.

(Correspondence AMERICAN ECONOMIST.) LONDON, January 12.-The general election had little effect on the development of the Protectionist cause in England for the reason that the question of Protection did not enter into it. The election was fought on the question of the power of the House of Lords, and as a corollary to that, on Home Rule for Ireland, both sides tacitly agreeing to leave the economic issue for settlement at a later date. In the final result the two great parties return to Parliament with almost exactly the same strength which they had before the dissolution, in spite of the hopes of the Liberal Free-Traders that they would sweep the country.

This result, however, has made it certain that the final fight on the Protection issue cannot be long delayed. The Liberals only hold office by grace of the Irish and Labor parties, who support them against the House of Lords, but who are hopelessly at issue with them on other questions. The Irish are Protectionists to a man, and the labor men are divided on this great question. The coalition will probably be able to force through their scheme for the limitation of the Lords' veto, but as soon as that is done they will break up, and the Liberal Free-Traders will find themselves unable to carry on the government. They will have to dissolve Parliament and go to the country again, and then it really seems that we will have the long-promised fight for a Protective Tariff.

In the meantime the country is still suffering from the muddle into which this unsettled condition has brought it. Last year's budget has not been passed and no taxes have been levied, because the Irish hate the Free-Trade budget and won't pass it until they get their price, which is a clear guarantee of Home Rule. Prime Minister Asquith couldn't give them that until after the election, and it is doubtful if he can give it now until he sees what the outcome of his assault on the Lords is. So far the Irish have made no bargain and will not budge from their position until Asquith delivers the goods.

The New Japanese Tariff. Recurring to the deputation of business men who waited on Sir Edward Grey, the foreign minister, and asked him to "do something" about the new Japanese Tariff which will have the effect of shutting British goods out of the Japanese markets, Sir Edward confessed that he could do nothing, and now Sir Edward Holden, a Free-Trade banker and politician, comes forward with the suggestion that England

per cent.

On army cloths, cotton and wool, from 222 to 624 per cent.

On serge, 576 per cent.

"Of twenty-seven items, in four cases the increased duty is less than 100 per cent., in three cases it is 100 per cent. or more, in nine cases 200 per cent. or more, and in seven cases 300 per cent. or more, in one case 400 per cent., in two cases over 500 per cent., and in one case over 600 per cent.

How is that for a good stiff Protective Tariff? The English Free-Traders simply can't find words strong enough to describe the iniquity of their yellow allies who want to preserve their own markets for their own manufacturers.

Britain's American Investments. Another uncommonly interesting statement has just been made by another eminent Free-Trader, Mr. George Paish, in a paper which he read a few nights ago before the Royal Statistical Society. He was discussing Great Britain's investments abroad, and leaving out India and the colonies he stated that her foreign investments amounted now to $6,905,000,000. Of this vast sum the one country which has attracted the largest amount is the Protected United States where there is now invested no less than $3,440,000,

000.

The Philippines have $40,000,000 of British money, and Cuba, which over here is regarded as practically American territory, has $113,500,000. All the British possessions, including the immense Empire of India, only account for $6,560,000000. So it seems that the Protected United States are good enough for the Briton who has money to invest and wants safety, together with a reasonable return, two things which he finds it hard to get in this Free-Trade country, where ministers are driven to socialistic taxation to raise money for public purposes. S.

THE LEMON DUTY.

Importers Active for a Reduction-How the Industry Advances Under Protection.

San Francisco Chronicle.

The New York importers of lemons made a most vigorous fight for a reduction of the Dingley duty on lemons by one-half, instead of which our Protectionist stand-pat Congressional delegation got the duty increased by 50 per cent. as a result of a perfectly truthful statement of the conditions of the industry in this State. That duty is now being attacked, evidently under the inspiration and direction of New York importers, who have never for one moment relaxed their efforts for that purpose.

Previous to the establishment of the lemon industry in California the profits of the importers of lemons were enormous, for while the cost of the lemons in Sicily was probably less than at the present time, the price of lemons to American consumers was so much greater than now that lemons were a luxury seen in very few homes. The Protective duty has had its regular legitimate result of increasing and cheapening of the product.

was no The

Under the Wilson Tariff the duty on lemons was one-half a cent a pound, and with that competition there growth to the California industry. output was small and the prices unremunerative. The Dingley bill increased the duty to one cent a pound, and under that duty the industry did increase until California was able to virtually supply the territory of the western part of the United States and as far east as the Mississippi River, Chicago and Illinois being the debatable ground. East of Illinois we could sell nothing except in occasional years of short crops in Sicily, the prices obtainable east of the Chicago line not being, on the average, remunerative to growers. As a result it was true, as stated in Congress, that our lemon growers were, many of them, rebudding to oranges.

Under those conditions Our lemon growers asked Congress for sufficient additional duty to enable California to compete on equal terms with Sicily in the large consuming populations of the Atlantic States, and Congress granted the request. As a result the lemon acreage is rapidly expanding, and if the duty remains as it is, within a short time California lemons will be actively competing with the imported fruit, with the result that lemons will be cheaper to consumers than under any other possible conditions.

Juggling with figures of cost on the one side or the other is of no consequence. The actual condition of the industry is conclusively indicated by the over which it is able to sell its

area

product.

THE TARIFF ON RICE.

Texas Democrats Want It Retained on
That and Other Products of
Their State.

To the Editor of the AMERICAN ECONOMIST:

Sir: In an article in the ECONOMIST of December 2, 1910, attention was directed to the predicament the sixteen Democratic Congressmen from Texas would find themselves in when the duty on rice came up for consideration in the proposed revision of the Tariff, every man of them being a Democrat, and, perforce, believing in the accepted doctrines of their party. They believe the Tariff is a tax; that it adds to the price of the article; that it is paid by the consumer, and that the consumer is in special charge of the Democratic party, and must be relieved from excessive charges made by favored industries. The obligation of the sixteen representatives from Texas, in fidelity to party principles and the suffering consumers, to at once remove the duty of 14 cents per pound on rice was pointed out. The editor of Rice Industry, a paper published at Houston, Texas, takes exception to the article. He says: "The writer knows very little of the rice industry * * * The high prices are not caused by the duty, but by the intervening charges of jobber and grocer before the article reaches the consumer." Then he comes to the kernel of the argumentthe main point of the article:

We must have the duty for the protection of the farmer, and right now, owing to the * market, the farmers having to quit business, canal companies going broke, and mills closing down. Our Tariff on rice has not taken one penny out of the pockets of the people that eat it.

Continuing on, blaming the jobber for exacting more than 25 per cent. profit, and the grocer for exacting more than 50 per cent., he begs that the poor farmer be not "jumped on," and strengthens his ap peal with the closing statement: "The Tariff benefits him and it is a burden on no one."

There you have the predicament of the Texas Congressman, and of every other Democratic Representative. The party says: "Remove the duty." But the constituent farmer says: "Touch not, for it benefits me."

Now, when the New Jersey Democratic Representative meets with his Texas brother, and after hearing the argument for the Protective duty on rice, recites on the same lines the reason for Protection on lace, embroideries, silks, satins, crockery, hats, and various other industries in which his constituents are occupied, are they all going to come into the Republican camp and vote to sustain the PayneAldrich Tariff?

That is the question that must be answered before there is a permanent revival of trade. Protection must be as

We

sured before the farmer will plant, or the banker will lend, or the manufacturer start operations, or the merchant lay in a stock of goods. The Texas editor is right. His arguments are sound. want him to apply them to our New Jersey industries as well as to those of Texas. Then we can purchase Texas rice, cattle, and sheep, and pay good prices. We can take cotton and wool and transform them into clothing to our mutual benefit, instead of letting that profit of changing raw material to a finished article go to men across the ocean.

EZRA C. WILLIAMS.

No Discrimination. (PRES. WOOD of the American Woolen Co.) "As the largest carded woolen manufacturer in the country. I see absolutely no discrimination against us in the wool schedule. The wool Tariff is no more to the exact liking of the worsted manufacturers than it is to the exact liking of the carded woolen manufacturers, but Tariffs are after all a thing of compromises and we cannot have everything exactly our way.

"The carded woolen manufacturers would like to import their heavy shrinkage wools, and the worsted manufacturers would like to do the same thing. Both are debarred, and both are forced to bring in the light shrinkage wools. In this respect both are on an even basis, but in the end the advantage lies with the carded woolen manufacturer, who uses his wool to greater and closer advantages, not being obliged to reckon with noils, which are sold at a loss to the worsted manufacturer, and this loss is to the gain of the carded woolen manufacturer, who secures this product.

"Moreover, the opportunity of buying clothing wools at a lower price is to the advantage of the carded woolen manufacturer. I do not see where carded woolen manufacturers have any cause to complain of the worsted manufacturers, and to my mind, the contentions of a few of the many carded woolen manufacturers are misleading and are causing great injury to the industry."

They Will Have to Meddle With It. The Democratic Congress of 1911 will jump right into the Tariff frying-pan. The revision will be on the absolute FreeTrade, or souphouse basis. The Democrats meddle with the Tariff whenever they have a chance, although they know full well how much trouble such meddling always put the country to. It is a little on the order of the men who become beastly drunk. They sicken of their spree, try to "pump up their boots," whip their wives, starve their children, and beat the men who have credited them, and wind up their spree that "They'll never touch another drop of whiskey."-Greenville (O.) Courier.

AID TO SHIPPING.

What Lewis Nixon, a Prominent Democrat, Says on the Subject-Time to Act.

From a report in the New York Times. Lewis Nixon, in speaking on the subject of "Ship Subsidies," said there was no subject more important to an American citizen that the rehabilitation of the American merchant marine. The present position of the English merchant marine rested upon the national endeavor of 160 years. The result of her wars of sixty years left her mistress of the seas. In the Civil War of the United States the American marine disappeared and during the period of domestic development in the United States England had increased her lead.

About 1890 there appeared two challenges in America and Germany. The United States confined itself to the building of a navy, and had produced a body of officers, of which the country was proud, as efficient as any in the world. But now they needed the merchant ship in a merchant marine as flourishing as it had been in the past. The very first act of the builders of the Constitution was to pass a law as to the regulation of foreign commerce. They enacted statutes which gave a preference to the American ship and encouraged the carriage of trade in ships flying the American flag. The drain from the country had amounted to $6,000,000,000 paid in cash to the foreigner for carrying American commerce. The only way to bolster up the commercial export trade was to say to the foreigner, "We will ourselves take the profits of the middleman." They must go back to the early policy. In 1810 we had a larger proportion of American commerce carried under the American flag than in 1910. Since the war we had done practically nothing to help the merchant marine. A number of remedies had been suggested. There was the idea of a free ship. Let them buy ships abroad, but in the conditions prevailing it was impossible to run the ship in competition with the foreigner. A nation to be independent must be self-contained in all lines of industrial proficiency and industrialism. English rates today are the highest in the world and yet they got the trade because they controlled the insurance and inspection.

Common Sense Would Flourish, "Kill off La Follette, Cummins, Beveridge, Bristow," says William Allen White, "and the principles they have stood for will not languish." That is too mild entirely. Kill off those worthies and what they have stood for, and the Republican party, business confidence, industrial activity, legislative sanity and common sense will flourish like a forest of green bay trees.-Kansas City Journal.