wood into paper in Canada." Wherein would our people be benefited by that? It is worth while to think it over.

Incidentally this shows what we might expect in case we adopt "free lumber" in our next tariff law. Canada is determined to "force the manufacture in Canada" of all things made from her timber. Lumber is one of those things. Would "tariff revision," even if it included "free lumber," make lumber cheaper? Think it over.

IMPORTANT COURT DECISIONS.

During the last five weeks several important decisions of State and Federal Courts have been rendered affecting the interests of railroads, and of employers and labor unions. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declared unconstitutional the twocents-passenger-rate law enacted in that state last year. The Federal District Court at Kansas City set down as null and void the Missouri law that prohibits the removal of suits against railroads and other foreign corporations from State to Federal Courts, and also the institution of suits by such companies against citizens of the State in Federal Courts.

On February 3 the United States Supreme Court, for the third time within a month, promulgated an opinion construing laws adversely to the contention of organized labor. The first of the decisions was rendered on January 6 in the case of some railway employes who sought to secure damages under what is known as "The Employers' Liability Law," making railroads responsible

for injuries resulting from the negligence of fellow servants, which law the court held to be unconstitutional. The second important finding in this line was announced on the 23d ultimo, when the Erdman Arbitration Act, forbidding the discharge of employes because they are members of labor unions, was also declared to be invalid. From this decision Judges McKenna and Holmes dissented. The third decision was in the case of Lawler vs. Loewe, the former a member of the Hatters' Union, and the latter a hat manufacturer of Danbury, Conn. The case involved the applicability of the seventh section of the Sherman AntiTrust Law to conspiracies by labor union to boycott articles entering into interstate trade. Under the terms of that provision the complaining party may collect three times the amount of his loss if the charge is sustained. The union fought the case on the ground that the law was inapplicable to such organizations, but the court, whose opinion was announced by Chief Justice Fuller, failed to accept this view, and in effect held that the unions could not be permitted to interfere by boycott with the free exchange of commerce between the States. The opinion of the court in this case was unanimous and no dissenting view was presented.

A delegate to the Michigan Constitutional Convention, in urging a fantastic scheme, said: "If it is not put in the constitution it will never get in anywhere." The new rule for constitution making seems to be "when in doubt put it in the constitution." Anything that is likely to commend itself to almost anyone may safely be left to the action of the Legislature. - New York Tribune.

PROTECTION FOR SOUTH AFRICA.

A "South African National Alliance" has been formed, with central office at Cape Town, the object of which is concisely stated to be "The development and protection of South African industries." The second article of its constitution more specifically states the purpose as

(b) To organize and conduct an educational campaign throughout the country for the purpose of inducing consumers to use South African products and manufactures in preference to imported articles, and of securing improvements in the character and quality of such products and manufactures.

a

(c) To use every legitimate means to secure the adoption of sound and reasonable protective policy for South Africa.

This is a repetition of the first steps taken in the American colonies a century and a half ago. The nonimportation agreements were good so far as they went, but after a while it was discovered that the British loyalists (usually the more wealthy) would not come into it and that adequate legislation for a protective tariff could not be had until the colonies should become independent.

Great Britain has since changed its policy and every self-governing colony is now at liberty to enact any tariff which it desires. Most of them have availed of this liberty to some extent, and the modern policy is to grant preferential rates on British goods, thus endeavoring to bind together by a common interest the many parts of the Empire.

If the United Kingdom adopts protection and imperial preference, as now seems highly probable, the whole scheme will become consist

ent and will be a success unless the preferential duties shall be such as to permit the ruin of some industry. The wool manufacture in Canada is suffering from that cause, and doubtless there will be other instances, but we are more and more impressed as time passes that the Imperial Federation policy makes it possible to each colony to fairly protect its industries and continue in the Empire.

As for the United States, we cannot expect free markets and we do not fear any foreign tariff which is not specially aimed at us. The rapid growth of our home market makes foreign markets less necessary for our farm products and even for our manufactures, and in respect to the latter we will take our chances.

FINAL HARVEST RETURNS.

The final estimates of the crop reporting board of the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Agriculture (in which preliminary estimates made earlier in the year are revised and corrected), indicate the acreage and production in 1907 of the farm crops of the United States to be as follows.

Acreage, Production and Farm Value,

Compared with January 1, 1907, horses have increased 245,000; mules, 52,000; milch cows, 226,000; other cattle decreased, 1,493,000; sheep increased, 1,391,000, and swine, 1,290,000. In average value per head horses decreased 10 cents; mules, $4.40; milch cows, 33 cents; other cattle, 21 cents; sheep increased, 4 cents, and swine decreased $1.57.

The total value of all animals enumerated on January 1, 1908, was $4,331,230,000, as compared with $4,423,698,000 on January 1, 1907, a decrease of $92,468,000, or 2.1 per cent.

THE CHRONIC POSTAL DEFICIT.

From the Troy Press.

The postal department of the past year, although its receipts exceeded $183,000,000, showed a deficit of $6,653,273. Undoubtedly a private corporation under the direction of a Morgan ora Hill, a Rockefeller or a Rogers, could have transacted the mail business of the country with equal ability, giving all the accommodations now enjoyed, and de

Vol. XIX.

No. 228..

tion.

Ever since the Civil War, when our shipping trade suffered a severe reverse, there has scarcely been a more important subject for Congressional action than its rehabilitation. This action has not yet been taken, and Congress seems undecided as to its principle and scope. It is felt by many that if nothing but the war was responsible for our present shipping situation, a recovery would have been made years ago, such as followed the War of 1812, without remedial action. Confirmatory of this view, it may be seen that statistics of our foreign carrying trade, from the time when its protection was set for removal (1828), and following this, from time to time, by foreign nations making conventions therefor, that before the war, under this unprotective policy, a large percentage of our carrying trade had gradually slipped away. In thirtythree years (1827-1861) we lost, of

import carriage, 34.3 per cent.; of export carriage, 15.4 per cent.-in our own trade.

"Navigation Laws" and "Iron Ships."

Only the single circumstance of unprotection to ship employment appears accountable for this loss of carriage, as all other conditions remained the same. That we should lose, and other nations gain, carriage, was the reason for their entering into “reciprocity” conventions for unprotection. Our "navigation laws" have been denounced as “restrictions" militating against successful competition, but this is an old “cry" misapplied. Our navigation laws operated favorably, and our early success was due to them, but our forefathers complained of "British navigation laws," which did injure our commerce and navigation -for British benefit. From 1844 to 1849 the British complained of their

"Navigation Act" of 1651-60, themselves, and modified it in 1849 to their own advantage-not to ours. Since then they have not been slow to urge, that our navigation laws need improvement, but there is no similarity in the two cases, except in one respect. The British Register is now open to foreign-built vessels, while ours is not. Free-ship registration would destroy shipbuilding in the United States. Under our early shipping policy, the protection of shipbuilding was an advantage to our shipping trade. Having the control of construction, we built and used the best ships in the world-the safest, fastest, and most durable.

It has been said that "iron ships," which we could not build cheaply, displaced our wooden ships. But the losses of carriage prior to the war occurred in the time of wooden ships, when these were at their best all over the world, and before the time of the iron steamer. British underwriters did not favor metal construction until 1854. From 1827 until 1854 we had lost, of import carriage, 22.9 per cent.; of export carriage, 18.2.

Culmination of Carriage Under
Protection.

Such was our ship protection from 1817 to 1828, that a culmination of carriage took place, in 1825, of 95.2 for imports, and 89.2 for exports; and in 1826, of 95 for imports, and 89.6 for exports. These high figures were reached in a time of peace under the following conditions:

Discriminating duties on the tonnage of foreign vessels-one dollar on foreign, but 6 cents only on our

own.

Discriminating duties on imports by foreign vessels-10 per cent. ex

Our ports shut to ships from places that were shut to our ships. Foreign vessels confined to carriage from the ports of their own country.

The politicians responsible for the removal of this protection pretended to believe that, if it were cast to the winds, no sacrifices would follow; on the contrary, our vessels would entirely monopolize the transport of all our trade. But, really, they did not care for the consequences of the Act. The Act itself violated the compact of union for "navigation laws" protective of the shipping of all the States in perpetuity. Without this compact, the Union would not have been consummated. Adherence to this compact would have preserved our carrying trade while the Union endured. Practically and logically, it seems conclusive, that the problem of shipping restoration is the reestablishment of its proper protection.

Unfortunately, where thorough study has not been given to the subject, there is some difficulty with many, who would like to have our shipping power restored, in satisfying their minds that protection is really the remedy required, and if sure of this, some are in doubt how it should be given. It results that many assumptions do duty for information and judgment. Various "conditions" have been made by foreign nations, most of them unknown to a casual observer, some of them deadly in effect, that are overlooked, even by the thoughtful. Of this class are underwriters' discriminations; carriage monopoly by foreignship freighting combines; certain rules of foreign Boards of Trade; flag preferences of foreign shippers; government bounties, subventions