With such a record of results, is it not strange that the people will cling to a system of economic teaching that has ever proven such a complete failure. The economic trouble of the present time is not due to lack of earnest effort or lack of honest purpose on the part of any of the people so much as to the rotten structure that is held up in educated circles as "Economic Science."

In 1893-6 if the average man had been told that any Republicans in 1910 would be working to re-enact the same sort of legislation that ushered in those Cleveland months of industrial distress, he at once would have called the prophet a fool. Now look at the present condition. Teaching, preaching and publishing the specious prevailing economic doctrine as it is held to affect the consumer in many ways, and failure to correct the error by the true facts because the truth had not been disseminated, make it a contest in which error repeatedly gains until, as in 1893-6 the fruits of the error become unbearable and they finally after great loss and suffering scramble back to the safe ground of adequate protection again, and while prospering for a season await the further attacks of the teachers of economic error. This round of events has been the rule for many years, and probably will continue until the truth of the subject becomes better known.

We think it was Chas. Lamb in his dissertation on roast pig who told how this delicacy was discovered through burning of the pig pen with the pigs inside, and thereafter burning pig-pens became more frequent until the people found a better way. Similarly in the past it has appeared to require the near destruction of

our industries in order to arouse people to the point of protecting them. May we not hope the time will come when reason and intelligence will lead them to do the same thing?

A prominent professor in economics who believes in protection, in a recent speech said that he did not believe the tariff raised the price of any articles but he supposed it was impossible to prove it. Another leading protectionist states it as undoubtedly true that where goods are imported of which this country produces none, the price is increased by the amount of the tariff; that if partly enough to supply the demand is produced here, the tariff will raise the price some but not the entire amount of the duty; and where a sufficient quantity is produced to supply the demand the tariff does not affect prices. Now, the true science of economics (and there is such a science) will show with mathematical certainty that except where the consumer is the importer the tariff in no case adds a cent to the price of any article to the consumer, save this: When protective duties enable consumers as a class to realize better returns for their labor, prices are apt to increase, but in less proportion than the increased earnings. Also, if through the operation of lower tariff and larger importation of foreign products the opportunities for home labor is restricted and the earnings reduced, prices will fall. The above rule is modified as in cases where a duty is imposed on a commodity not produced in the country, the first effect will undoubtedly be a temporary raise in prices. A strong wind blowing across Lake Michigan for many hours will cause the water to rise on the lee shore; but as soon as the wind falls the water resumes its regular level. So attempts to bolster up prices for any considerable time on the plea of duties, or any other taxes is sure to fail because it is contrary to the natural law that governs in price making.

Again, protectionists speak of the tariff as "Protecting American industries" and in this carry the idea that it is class legislation and this is unpopular. Then, too, when protectionists speak of the Payne or the Dingley tariff revision they are too apt in commending the act to mention its reductions or free list, thereby leading many to believe that greater reductions and larger free list would be still better. This is a practice that should be avoided.

The true underlying principles of economics instead of favoring free trade, as does the present system, shows the wisdom and necessity of protection-more reasonable and justifiable even than the protection to title in real estate or to other forms of personal property.

Thos. B. Reed was right when he said: "Protection rests upon principle or it does not. If it does not, then it is no part of the business of government. If it rests upon principle, then that principle must be that the American market belongs to Americans." James G. Blaine was wiser than his contemporaries when, while the McKinley tariff was being framed he objected to the free list, and wished a tariff placed on all imports, and a provision by which the rates on non-competitive products could be varied and used in negotiating reciprocity treaties.

The present popular notion of graduating tariff schedules by difference in the cost of production, and the expending of hundreds of thou

sands of dollars to get statistics, which, even if they could be accurately compiled would be wholly foreign to the subject and valueless, has only one counterpart that we have ever read of-Bret Harte's "Rafferty's ditch-a gigantic ditch to carry water from a place where there is none to a place where it was not wanted." Cost of production is a factor that does not enter into the normal economic equation of price fixing nor does it in any manner touch the need or extent of tariff protection.

East Jordan, Mich., Sept. 23, 1910.

SUGAR PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION.

Including imports and home production, about 7,500,000,000 pounds of sugar were consumed in the United States in the year ending June 30, according to the Bureau of Statistics. The average per capita consumption, 82 pounds, exceeded that of any preceding year. The production of cane sugar in the United States was 750,000,000 pounds, as compared with 829,000,000 pounds in 1909, but 1,025,000,000 pounds of beet sugar were produced against 967,000,000, the highest record of any previous year. The Hawaiian Islands furnished 1,111,000,000; Porto Rico, 569,000,000; and the Philippine Islands, 176,000,000 pounds, in each case more than for any preceding year. The imports from foreign countries aggregated 3,918,000,000 pounds, a reduction of 188,000,000 pounds from the preceding year. Foreign countries supplied 51 per cent. of the sugar consumed, as compared with 75 per cent, in 1900 and preceding years. According to the Agricultural Department, the quantity of beet sugar produced has increased from 73,000,000 pounds in 1899 to 1,025,000,000 pounds in 1910, an increase of 952,000,000 pounds, as compared with an increase of 181,000,000 pounds of cane sugar in the same time. And yet the free-trade papers continue to assert that the beet-sugar industry in this country is a failure and should be abandoned.

London, Oct. 1, 1910.

The more intelligent among the English free traders admit today that it has never been an article of their creed that in no circumstances ought revenue to be raised by means of duties on imports. This must be self-evident, because customs and excise account for more than a third of the British national income. And it is further admitted by those in the confidence of the government that in the near future that income will need large augmentation. Direct taxation is already crushing the life out of the middle class tax payers. Here, says the wide awake free trader, is the real danger with which the system is threatened, and the menace comes from the free traders own camp. If England returns to protection, it will be because it is the easiest way of raising the enormous income which, if the government persevere in their present policy, must somehow or other be provided. If Englishmen have to weigh tariff reform against death duties and an income tax to which no permanent limit can be assigned except that of 20 shillings in the pound sterling, they will most surely choose tariff

reform.

The new Japanese tariff is a very difficult thing for the Cobdenites to explain. According to their principles this new tariff ought to inflict a most damaging blow upon the commercial prosperity of Japan. From the free trade standpoint that country literally groans under a handicap of an average duty of 16 per cent. upon her imports. The new

tariff will raise the burden to 23 per cent., which must be regarded as crushing by every faithful Cobdenite. Here in England such a person would regard a 5 per cent. duty all round as sealing the doom of the United Kingdom. But do these theories quite square with every day facts? We must remember that the Japanese are careful students of what goes on in England; and are quite familiar with all the arguments in favor of our fiscal system; and also have the great advantage of studying it in actual practice. I wonder whether it is because of this latter fact that they have absolutely rejected free trade, aye, and actually slammed the door in its face? Remember that we find them, in the teeth of all these wonderful arguments, calmly adding nearly 50 per cent. to their import duties which, as they are told, must throttle their industry and destroy their power to compete with other nations. They appear to have actually estimated for a decrease of two millions sterling in their imports as a consequence of the increased duties, and this although they are quite familiar with the free trade theory that imports are paid for with exports, and consequently that the less they import the less they can sell.

It must also be noted that the Japanese government is willing to enter into reciprocity treaties with foreign powers willing to do the same with them; but with Great Britain, says the Japanese Foreign Minister, there is no room for a convention. Pursuing what is called a free trade policy England has no tariff, and is therefore unable to reciprocate concession for concession. The future trade policy of Japan seems to be one of reciprocal tariff concessions; and in that event the future is even darker than is at present realized, for whereas we have hitherto enjoyed terms which enabled us to compete with Germany and the United States on an equal basis, the conclusion of treaties by those countries may place them in a much more favorable posi

tion than ourselves.

It is, of course, quite a fallacy to say that British shipping won its supremacy under free trade; and it is equally absurd to say that only free trade will maintain it. Our great

So that in five important items of daily foodstuffs, the cost is higher under free trade than under protection.

F. C. CHAPPELL.

under stringent protection. That great authority on mercantile marine questions-Sir Archibald Alison-states that in 30 years (1815-1844) our shipping tonnage increased from 2,350,000 tons to 3,900,000-a notable expansion. And in 1845 this expanded to 4,310,639 tons British, against 1,735,079 foreign-well over two-thirds of the whole. Today we own considerably less than half-on paper-and still less in reality; for an important amount of our nominal tonnage is owned in the United States, who run it under the British flag to avoid, it is said, paying the higher wages which would be necessary under their own. In 1845-'49 came the repeal of protective duties; in 1854 the abolition of the Navigation Laws. In 1859 the general Shipowners' Society, in a petition to Parliament, pointed out that during the last eight

IN POLITICS.

From the Portland Oregonian.

The people's guardians are very insistent that special interest shall be banished from politics. Which is sound doctrine if special interest is corrupt or dishonest interest. "Special interests are not entitled to representation in any public office," said Mr. Garfield last Monday, echoing a speech of Colonel Roosevelt's. "We must drive the special interests out of politics," remarked the colonel.

Corrupt interest certainly must be driven out of politics. But property interest will not be driven out of politics. For property is the basis of government; without property government could not be. This means that property will insist on influencing and guiding governmental policy, and, in last conflict, on controlling it. This is not to say that sinister influence and intrigue of rich men will be tolerated; they will certainly be cast out.

But special interest in this country is the name of many groups of legitimate business, industry and wealth. None of the orators thus far has differentiated "bad interest" from "special interest." In truth, each and all the orators are loose in their definition and description of special interest. They name no special interest that should be excluded from politics. All citizens know there are designing groups of wealth that must be excluded. But "special interest" obviously spreads beyond those groups. The term is used in no exact sense. Its noisy speakers go so far as to say that wealth must be governed to suit the needs of the public, irrespective of its own necessities, and they declaim against persons who oppose this doctrine as "special interest."

The great railroads of the United States will continue to have something to say about politics, and it is right that they should, in open and honest way. They represent one of the greatest aggregations of wealth in the nation, and it is right that they should be represented in legislation and in administration. So also with many great interests of industry and business.

Any other arrangement would expose the property of this country to raids of those whose chief design is spoliation of property-equalization they call it through power of taxation. This menace compels "special interests" to engage in politics and to seek representation in public office.

Colonel Roosevelt preaches much sound doctrine. His speeches ap

peal, in the main, to the sober sense of the country. But his loose epithet of "special interest" gives his followers no tail-hold of the subject. He is pandering to the extreme socialistic demand for raids on property and business. Property interest or special interest in the good sense will not be driven out of politics or office while this Government lasts.

THE TARIFF ISSUE.

From the Speech of Hon. J. Sloat Fassett, of New York, in the House of Representatives.

There may be room for difference of opinion as to certain Democratic theories in contrast with certain Republican principles, but there is no room for a difference of opinion as to the condition of the American people when Cleveland came into power and the condition of the same people when he went out of power. And this was only fourteen years ago, and I venture to say that there is not a farmer in the United States who raises wheat or oats or hay or barley or potatoes or sugar beets or cattle or poultry or tobacco who, if he knew that his vote would do it, would vote to bring back a return of the conditions of the Cleveland administration. There is not a working man, iron worker or wood worker, a butcher or a baker, a banker or a merchant, a business man of any kind in all this wide land who, if he knew that his vote were to destroy the conditions which are blessing us, would cast his vote for the Democratic party this fall.

...

Our opponents dwell with emphasis upon the high cost of living, but fail to point out a single product of the farm the price of which they would reduce. They know that high wages have much to do with high