affected Bulgaria, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Koordistan, Syria, India, China, Japan, the islands of the southern Pacific, and various points on the coast of Africa. He justly says that it is folly to seek for the cause of such a disturbance of values in laws which are peculiar to this country; and that "economists had better look into the loss in the purchasing power of our medium of exchange, and the decrease in the proportion of laborers to the work to be done."

Within two years the Democratic party may find reason to conclude that if the people cry for the moon, it is safer not to promise it to them, even though the promise should enable the party to secure a score of governorships, and the control of Congress. For two years they will have the control. What will they do with it?

OUR GREAT HOME-MARKET.

From the Troy Times.

Some "tariff reformers" appear inclined to make merry over the fact that the famous Home Market Club, which has headquarters in Boston, although membership includes representatives of all parts of the country, has not gone out of business as a result of the recent elections. These hilarious gentlenien proceed on the theory that since the tariff is to be revised downward by the Democrats there will be "nothing doing" for the Home Market Club, because foreign products will have the way into the country made easy. This of course is assuming entirely too much. Even Democrats will not be able to agree upon a slashing reduction of rates, and duties will remain on a great

many foreign articles for a long

time to come.

But the fun that is being poked at the Home Market Club by certain "tariff reform" extremists illustrates the characteristic attitude of those gentlemen in discussing the economic interests of the country. They always magnify the opportunities abroad and belittle those at home. No one properly appreciative of commercial opportunities will deny the importance and desirability of foreign trade-or fail to regret that we do not have American ships with which to promote such traffic. But, on the other hand, no thoughtful person will question the enormous advantage of such a home market as the United States possesses. The truth about the matter is readily ascertainable. The annual value in round numbers of the manufactures of the United States is $15,000,000,ooo. The total product of the farms is put at $9,000,000,000. Here is an aggregate production of $24,000,000,000. Where does it go? Our exports, large as they are, have never exceeded $1,880,000,000 in a single year. It needs but a simple example in arithmetic to show where the vast bulk of American products is consumed.

The United States has the biggest and best home market of any country in the world, and sneers at those engaged in efforts to preserve it merely discredit the sneerers.

"SCIENTIFIC" TARIFF TINK

ERING.

From the San Francisco Chronicle. President Taft seems to be between the devil and the deep sea. If he does not recommend an attempt at tariff tinkering, which he knows can come to nothing, he will be abused by every free trader in the country; and if he does recommend it, he knows he will only widen the breach in the Republican party. There are two ways of constructing a tariff bill, either of which may be relied on to produce the result desired. One way is to construct a tariff for revenue, in which case the products which we cannot produce get the highest tax which can be levied without seriously checking importation, and any additional revenue required is obtained by taxing those competitive products whose importation will be least checked by a tax. That kind of a tariff is a "scientific" revenue tariff.

The other method is the protective system, in which whatever duties are levied which are found necessary to give the home markets for such commodities as we can produce to advantage to home industries, securing whatever additional revenue is needed by duties on commodities which we do not produce, or can produce to least advantage. There is no difficulty in making such a tariff. It needs no assistance from "professors" or "commissions." The Custom-house records are the guide. If the foreign article comes in in considerable quantities, raise the duty. If it does not, then stand pat.

In neither of these cases is the assistance of any theorist needed. He will simply muddle. He is muddling The proposal of alleged Republicans who profess to be advocates of the protective principle is to substitute for the unquestionable records of the Custom-houses as the guide to fixing duties the alleged "cost of production" of the different commodities in foreign countries. Nothing could be more absurd. The

481 paragraphs of the tariff act outside the free list fix the duties upon thonsands and thousands of commodities, and even if the producers and manufacturers of the world threw open their books to our accountants, this country, rich as it is, could not hire enough competent men to make the investigations. There are not enough competent men on earth to do the work. But, as a matter of fact, nobody, however competent, can find out the cost of a single article of commerce unless he is engaged in producing it, and then he can only find the cost in his own establishment. He could not find the cost in any other establishment for the reason that he would not be allowed to see the books, even if costs were kept.

One can imagine the extreme politeness with which an American investigating commission of this kind would be received in a Japanese manufactory. But it would be difficult to imagine how little it would find out. Nor can the Government even find the costs of anything in this country. Comparatively few producers know their own costs. Those who know most about them are the proprietors of the big establishments, where everything is standardized and the closest watch kept. But those are not the costs which are to be considered, unless the intent is to ruthlessly destroy the small men in industry, which we do not understand to be part of the protective doctrine.

In pursuance of the theoretical fad which possesses the souls of some of our statesmen, our Consuls have been directed to find the cost of everything produced in their fields. And with one accord they report that they cannot find out a thing about

anything. A few years ago we almost brought on a trade war with Germany by trying to find out even what goods exported to America actually sold for in the open German market. We shall get no costs. What we shall get will be what some free-trade "investigators" regard as alleged costs, which, used as a basis, will put an end to protection.

"REORGANIZING THE TARIFF BOARD."

From the New York Journal of Commerce

(free trade).

First and foremost, Congress is confronted with the question why any tariff "board" or "commission" should exist at all. It is agreed on all hands that the board or commission cannot be legislative in its character, even in the sense in which the Interstate Commerce Commission is so by virtue of its rate-making power. All branches of all parties agree that the Commission cannot be vested with similar power in the fixing of tariff rates. The board has no judicial authority, and, of course, cannot have. It is not administrative, does not profess to be, and both the admnistrative and judicial phases of the tariff question are fully disposed of in the customs court and in the customs division of the Treasury Department. The board has even found that the holding of hearings is an unnecessary and undesirable way of getting information. Summed up, this simply means that the organization is purely investigative and can be nothing else. If that is true, why does not Congress follow the indicated path of experience by converting this board into a bureau, permanent in character, investigative in its work, and headed by a single com

petent man? That is the plan pursued in organizing the Bureau of corporations, an establishment which has been eminently satisfactory and efficient in its work. Instead of this, Congressmen are now contemplating the enlarging of the board of five instead of three persons and the enacting of undesirable and hampering provisions requiring the presence of a lawyer, a statistician, a business man, and what not upon the board. This is mere surplusage, and may result only in making a comfortable nesting place for some politicians who will have nothing to do after March 4. Even the President, in his message, says of the proposal to increase the number of members to five that he does not know that it would be objectionable. This means that it would be very objectionable, and every dispassionate man who is conversant with the situation now

recognizes that all members in excess of one are superfluous.

It is natural that persons with fixed incomes should wish for free trade, that they may buy more cheaply. But free trade means the purchase of goods abroad, and the idleness of our own labor. Under such a system no doubt there would be an era of cheapness, but the cheap goods would be foreign goods, and would mean unemployment here.-Boston Saturday Republican.

Very young reformers may felicitate themselves on having lifted the country out of the horrible pit and miry clay of business lawlessness and dishonesty, but not a few of us who are older have distinct recollections of not a few men of integrity long before the days of the anti-trust law and of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is well to be glad of the virtues of the present; but there were good men the other day. Fairness-and not merely fairnesscommon sense, demands the recognition of this truth. - New Bedford Standard.