The Constitution of the United States provides that all laws for the raising of revenues for the Government must originate in the House of Representatives. No act would be lawful, even if it originated in the Senate. Therefore of what use can a tariff commission be in the enactment of such laws, except to procure information in this or in foreign countries to present to Congress for the consideration of the House of Representatives in preparing a tariff bill; and under existing conditions or laws the Federal Government, through the consular service of the United States, has representatives in every principal district in every nation in the world, obtaining the very information that the tariff commission would be expected to obtain-that is, conditions abroad as to the cost of production, the amount of goods going from the United States to the foreign territories, and through the Monthly Consular Reports very valuable information is given, but no agitation comes to Congress under the existing laws for a change of tariff rates, as would be the case if we had a tariff commission.

Under existing laws we have a tariff board consisting of three men appointed by the President, which board has gathered since the adoption of the new tariff law and will in the future gather such information as the President needs for the application of the maximum and minimum rates of duty, as provided for in the Payne tariff bill. What more can be desired? Who wants agitation? No one except the chronic dissatisfied.

From the nine months of the present fiscal year ending March last, almost one-half in value of the total imports into the United States came in free of duty. The figures are: Free imports, $584,674,895; dutiable imports, $599,639,895. The volume of free imports is about $140,000,000 greater than in the corresponding period of the previous fiscal year. And yet the free traders continue to harp upon our "prohibitory tariff."

EXPORTS OF FOODSTUFFS AND MANUFACTURES.

BY WALTER J. BALLARD.

Exports of foodstuffs from the United States will amount to about 330 million dollars in value in the fiscal year 1910, against more than 450 millions in 1906, practically 500 millions in 1900, and over 550 millions in 1898, the high record year for the exportation of foodstuffs, a decrease of 220 millions in only 12 years.

In this term "foodstuffs" are included wheat, corn and other breadstuffs, meat and dairy products, live cattle, fish, rice and vegetables. In all these articles while prices are higher than in earlier years, the quantity and in most cases the value of the exports are less in 1910 than in certain earlier years, and in many cases less than half that of a like period in former years.

This estimate of the exports of the fiscal year 1910 is based upon figures of the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Commerce and Labor, for the nine months ending with March. It shows the number of the cattle exported in that period as about 127,000, indicating that the number exported in the full fiscal year will be about 175,000, against 593,000 in the fiscal year 1904, while the value of the cattle exports in 1900 will be but approximately 16 million dollars, against 42 1/2 million in 1904. The average export value per head of cattle exported thus far in 1910 is $90.00, against an average value of $62.00 per head in 1905, and $74.00 per head in 1903.

The quantity of fresh beef exported in 1910 will probably amount to about 75 million pounds, against 350 million in 1901, the high record

year, and the value but about 8 million dollars, against over 30 million in 1901. The bacon exports in 1910 will, judging from the figures thus far received, aggregate less than 180 million pounds, valued at approximately 20 million dollars, against 650 million pounds, valued at 46 million dollars in 1898, and of lard about 400 million pounds, valued at approximately 45 million dollars, against 742 million pounds in 1906, valued at 60 million dollars. The average value per pound of bacon exported in the fiscal year 1910 for which figures are available, is about 12c. per pound, against an annual average per pound of 7 1/2c. in 1897 and of lard in 1910, 12c. per pound, against 73c. in 1902, and 58c. in 1895.

The quantity of wheat exported in the fiscal year 1910 will aggregate but about 50 million bushels, against 157 million in 1892, the high record year. The average export value for 1910 is about $1.03 per bushel, against 75c. in 1902, and 58c. in 1895. The corn exports for the fiscal year will, judging from the figures thus far received, aggregate about 36 million bushels, against 209 million bushels in 1900, the export price in 1910 being about 70c. per bushel, against an average of 4Ic. in 1900, and 31c. in 1897.

Thus the number of cattle exported in the fiscal year 1910 will be about one-third of the number exported in 1904, the quantity of fresh beef but about one-fourth that of 1901, and one-third that of 1898, the quantity of lard about one-half that of 1906, the quantity of wheat about one-third that of 1902, and the quantity of corn less than one-fifth that of 1900.

The total volue of all live animals

exported in 1910 will aggregate approximately 20 million dollars, against 52 million in 1901; the value of breadstuffs in 1910, about 140 million dollars, against 334 million in 1898; the value of meat and dairy products about 140 million dollars against 211 million in 1906.

In the mean time the value of manufactures has increased and will be in 1910 approximately 750 million dollars, against 453 million dollars in 1902, 258 million in 1896, and 179 million in 1890, thus bringing the value of all exports for 1910 to within about 150 million dollars of the high record of 1907 and 1908.

THE INSURGENTS AND PUBLIC

SENTIMENT.

Washington Cor. of "Practical Politics."

They are a very small minority of Congress, these rebel Republicans, but the most important of political questions today is whether or not they represent the bulk of public sentiment. Probably they did, on the tariff question, but they have been trading right along on the prestige they gained in that fight and making political capital for themselves over new issues which the country neither understands nor cares anything about. The first two important political barometers, the elections in the 14th Massachusetts and 32d New York districts, evidently indicated that the people were tired of the Republican party. Since then a Republican mayor has been elected in St. Paul, Minn., for the first time in 14 years, and insurgent Republican mayors in certain

Kansas cities have been driven from office. As one of the most experienced of Republican senators recently remarked, reviewing these occurrences: "The only feature that seems common to all these elections is that the people want a change. As the Republicans hold most of the offices in the country, naturally the Republican party will suffer most."

London, May 1, 1910. A government report on the "Cost of Living in Belgian Towns" has recently been issued, and it contains some useful information likely to interest protectionists abroad. One of the usual free trade assertions, which, by the way, is demolished by this report, is that the conditions of the working classes as regards wages, hours of labor, and general standard of living, is much worse in countries having high tariffs than in countries having low tariffs. When confronted with the example of the United States as a proof to the contrary, free traders tell us that the conditions of life in a vast country of boundless resources and insufficient population cannot be compared with those prevailing in older countries. Grant this; but no such objection can apply to a comparison of Belgium with Germany. Although Belgium is far from being a free trade country, her average tariff is only about half as high as that of Germany, and she admits free of duty such articles of food as cocoa, beans, tea and unroasted coffee, all of which we tax heavily, as well as wheat, cheese, and other foodstuffs, on which Germany levies substantial duties. If the free trade theory were correct, therefore, we should expect to find that in Belgium the working classes worked shorter hours and obtained higher wages than in Germany. But this is not the case at all. Taking the figures of wages in the building, engineering and printing trades as given in the reports on the

It is clear, therefore, that the highly-protected German workman is better off than his Belgian confrere both as regards wages and hours. There are, of course, factors which enter into this question of wages and hours of labor, quite apart from tariffs, some of them being the influence of highly organized trade unions and the skill and efficiency of the workers. But the fact, as proved by the British Board of Trade figures, that in Germany, under protection, and even high protection, the workman's lot is substantially better than in the adjacent country of Belgium under a low tariff, completely disposes of the free

trade argument that low wages and long hours of labor are the products of high tariffs. In face of the enormous increase of both imports and exports of such a country as Germany, it is absurd for free traders to talk of a tariff checking trade. Since Germany adopted protection in 1879, her exports have increased 121 per cent., while during the same period British exports have only increased 64 per cent. It is an interesting fact, too, that the number of motor cars made in America of a certain group of manufacturers amounted in 1909 to no less than 94,891 cars, against 12,000 cars produced in the United Kingdom. But the American maker is protected by a tariff of 45 per cent.

As regards the general condition of wages paid in Germany, I may add that the usual rate of pay for unskilled labor runs from 24 to 27 shillings a week, say $6 to $6.75; in England the rate would be from 18 to 23 shillings a week. The average rate of wages for all Krupp's 30,000 emplayes, including apprentices and boys, is about 30 shillings ($7.50) a week. In some of the textile towns wages may be slightly lower than in Lancashire, but the working pace is slower, the workers are housed under better conditions, and foodstuffs and other commodities are cheaper than in England. The wages of cotton operatives have risen 25 per cent. during the last ten years. At Frankfort, said to be the dearest town in Germany, clothes can be obtained even cheaper than in England. It has been recently stated that the most abject poverty in Germany is expressed in neatly patched clothes. At Barmen, flats consisting of three large rooms and

a kitchen can be rented for 4 shillings ($1) a week, inclusive. A suit of clothes can be had for $4.50 (for a workman, of course); glace kid patent boots, $1.50 a pair; good shirts, 36c.; socks, 6c. a pair; bread, 4 lb. for IIC.; eggs, new laid, to for 18c.; tea from 30c. a lb. You rarely meet children selling goods in the streets, beggars, badly shod children, tumbledown cottages in the rural districts, drunken men or women, etc. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for England today.

F. C. CHAPPELL.

THE HIGH PRICES.

At present Democratic orators are making loud boasts that the investigations of high prices will furnish them with first-rate campaign material. Possibly, but "lest we forget" there was another investigation some years ago. After the passage of the McKinley tariff the Democrats started an elaborate investigation in order to prove that wages were declining, or at best remaining at their former level. They paid an expert to get the figures from manufacturing plants, and counted their chickens before they were hatched.

The expert went on his way neither rejoicing nor sorrowing, but gathering statistics and publishing the same. His reports showed that wages were rising, and the longer he investigated the more increases he found. It was not necessary for Republicans to vindicate the tariff of 1890; this was done by a statistician paid by Democratic campaign managers, until finally they requested him to cease.. On the whole, the tariff has not, in our day, had such an indorsement as it obtained from the famous investigator, who was paid to show that it injured the public, and who proved that it was a public benefit.

Now, with regard to high prices. The consumer is undoubtedly paying out large sums for beef, poultry, eggs, butter and vegetables. He is not paying high prices for manufactured goods, and the high prices for food products may be due to causes neither directly nor indirectly connected with the tariff. Food prices have risen here, in Protectionist Germany, in Protectionist France, in Protectionist Russia, but likewise in Free Trade England. All over the world, from England to China, the cost of food is on the increase. The fact is beyond dispute.

Suppose that investigation should lead to this conclusion: that city population is growing more rapidly than country population; that food consumers are growing more rapidly than food producers; that this tendency is world-wide, and that the law of supply and demand, not the tariff law, is forcing food upward. If this should be the generally accepted view, the Democrats may well ponder on the pithy sentence of the late Samuel J. Randall, "The Democratic party has not much foresight, but it has some hindsight." The McKinley investigation is worth remembering.

THE SITUATION IN INDIANA.

Washington Cor. Boston Transcript.

James E. Watson, former whip of the House, the right hand man to Speaker Cannon, and one of the chief defenders of the present tariff law, has sent letters to three hundred Indiana Republicans inquiring into conditions as they relate to the Re

publican party. The situation is more interesting because Mr. Watson is an advocate of the Payne tariff bill, while Senator Beveridge, who is to be the issue in Republican politics in the State, is opposed to the law.

It is said that one of the chief inquiries Mr. Watson made related to the manner in which Senator Beveridge's State convention speech was received in this State by Republicans, particularly that part relating to the tariff. It is asserted that Mr. Watson has received answers to all the letters, and that, taking these letters as a basis, he has decided that it will be very difficult to inspire respect for the Payne law in the minds of the people, and that he has written to some of his friends in the State that there seems to be much trouble ahead.

A copy of one of his second letters has been made public from a source of authority. It was written to a Republican to whom he addressed one of his original letters.

In the letter Mr. Watson writes of the Indiana situation as follows:

"The truth is that the tariff is misrepresented by the newspapers because they were not favored to the exclusion of all other industries and because they have banded together to destroy the chances of the Republican party in this campaign. They intend to have free trade in print paper and intend to destroy any party that stands in the way of the consummation of their wishes. Το this end they have constantly lied about the tariff until it is misunderstood by the people, and some gentlemen seeking to foist themselves into position by taking advantage of this rising sentiment are claiming to be in full sympathy with the move