sion might be granted by the court in its discretion.

The effect of the changes is regarded by many as rendering the bill very objectionable. Some find it to contain elements of danger to New England railroad service and business.

The Senate bill has been productive of several days of debate. Not many important changes have been effected in the original draft. A motion of Senator Cummins to strike out the entire six sections providing for a court of commerce was defeated, 28 to 37. The "insurgents" voting with the Democrats in the affirmative were Beveridge, Bristow, Clapp, Cummins, Dolliver and La Follette. Following this action, Mr. Bacon presented an amendment substituting the United States Circuit Courts for the Court of Commerce in the trial of commerce cases, but it was voted down without division. A negative fate also met an amendment by Mr. Cummins reducing the membership of the court from five to three.

As the result of a wrangle between "insurgents," regular Republicans and Democrats, on May 13, the "long and short haul" amendment of Senator Dixon was patched up with a new proviso and carried through the Senate by a vote of 56 to 10. Though both regulars and insurgents claimed the compromise as a victory, it seems that nobody is satisfied with the result, and the provision adopted is not expected to stand when the bill comes out of conference committee. The amendment as adopted strikes from the existing law the words, "under substantially similar cimcumstances and conditions," as applied to the prohi

bition of a greater compensation for a shorter than a longer distance, but gives power to the Interstate Conmmerce Commission to make an exemption when warranted by circumstances. Railroad lawyers do not think that the amendment makes much change in existing conditions, except that it perhaps places the burden of proof with regard to violations of the long and short haul provisions of the present law more distinctly on the railroads. If the Senate provision becomes a law, the whole matter will be left chiefly to the discretion of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

SOUTH AFRICA TO ADOPT PROTECTION.

A Cape Town correspondent writes the Protectionist that the country is awaiting the advent of Union and the election of the first Union parliament. They are still working under the old tariff, but he writes: "You may safely predict that the first Union tariff will be protective and that it will be the settled policy of the Union government to assist in developing the industrial activities of United South Africa. I have personally interviewed most of the leading men in each of the four Colonies, soon to be one, and at the recent Convention this question was discussed in all its bearings.

"With regard to present relations of Briton and Boer, you may take it that there is a complete settling down on both sides. Of course there is still a goodly share of racial bitterness in the ranks of the back velder, but among the educated classes who, after all, are the leaders of Dutch thought, the position is ac

cepted and there is every indication of honest effort to work loyally with the Britisher, to make South Africa a goodly and prosperous country.

"So far as general trade is concerned, I am of opinion that we are on the eve of very prosperous times. The country is in a better condition this year than I have ever seen it before. Rains have been plentiful throughout the whole land and agriculture is progressing by leaps and bounds. The outlook generally is far more promising than has been the case for many years."

TARIFF HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF.

From the San Francisco Chronicle.

At regularly recurring periods the American people become dissatisfied with the working of the protective tariff. It is a curious fact that this dissatisfaction usually manifests itself when the country is in a prosperous condition and when it would seem that there was every reason for steadfastly adhering to a fiscal policy which has admittedly resulted in making the United States the wealthiest nation on the face of the globe. That was the case in 1890, when the Republican majority in Congress, elected two years earlier, was converted into an overwhelming Democratic majority, and there are abundant signs that the experience will be repeated in 1910.

If such a result occurs we may reasonably expect a repetition of the circumstances which attended the restoration of Democratic control of the lower house in 1891. Nineteen years is a comparatively short space of time, but it appears that it is a long enough interval in which to for

get very important happenings, and to permit several hundred thousand new voters to come on the scene who have no knowledge of them. And while there are many who recall the disastrous years between 1892 and 1896 who are ready and willing to sound a warning note, the chances are that what they say will pass unheeded.

Nevertheless, it is worth while to make the attempt. Perhaps the country may be sane enough to perceive that there is something like a grotesque inconsistency in attacking a condition which only a few years ago was declared by those now loudest in their denunciation of the protective tariff to be the one most desirable of attainment. Let us not forget that it was Bryan, the free trader and the free silverite, who vociferously urged in 1896 that the farmer was being ruined by the fall in prices, and that the whole country was suffering from the evil consequences of the failure of the producer to receive a fair remuneration for his products. If he was right then, he and his followers must be wrong now when they assume that what he once extolled as a blessing is now a curse.

Mr. Bryan declared in 1896 that it was lack of basic money which caused the mischief; protectionists asserted that, despite the unquestioned fact that there had been a general fall in prices after 1873, the United States had managed, by means of its protective tariff, to ward off its evil effects, and that up to 1891, owing to the rapid development of the resources of the country, there was prosperity because there was activity in every line of industry. Up to the very eve of the campaign in 1890, which resulted in the defeat of the Republican party in the Congressional poll, the newspapers of the country were dwelling on the prosperous conditions then existing. The "Chronicle" has repeatedly quoted an article from the New York Herald, published in July, 1890, in which the writer declared that business was "provokingly" good, and Bradstreet's amply confirmed its assertion without using the queer qualifying word; but in a few short months the whole situation was changed. Industrial activity ceased. Mills closed down in every direction. Business failures were unprecedented in number and volume, and affairs generally were in as wretched a state as they were on the accession of Buchanan to the Presidency, whose first message to Congress was written to apprise the body that in the midst of great agricultural plenty the country going to ruin because a staggering blow had been delivered to its manufacturing industry by free-trade legislation.

was

It has been urged that the depression of the years between 1892 and 1896 set in before the Democrats had an opportunity to legislate, and that, therefore, the panic cannot be justly charged to that party. Those who take this stand ignore the potent effect of apprehension. It may be true that no one ought to cry out before he is hurt, but that maxim is not heeded by the business world. People engaged in enterprises in which invested money is involved act like prudent mariners when a storm is threatened, and shorten sail before

it breaks over them. If the storm does not materialize the progress of the ship is impeded as much as though it had raged. It may not be overwhelmed, but it makes precious little headway "under bare poles."

That was the case in 1892. Under the pressure of fear the business world began shortening sail. Production fell off enormously and there were four years of idleness in the factories and activity in the souphouses. It cannot be said that free trade did the trick, for we never wholly adopted the policy and are not likely to do so at any time in the future until we make up our mind to accept the standard of living of the working classes of other countries. But, while they failed to wipe out the protective tariff, the Democrats succeeded in making people believe they intended to do so, and the result was nearly as bad as if they had succeeded. The condition today resembles that which existed between 1890 and 1892. The same demand for cheapness is being voiced in disregard of the fact that cheap men are required to produce that result; and it is so insistent that a large section of the producing element is showing signs of alarm, which may easily become a panic. That result can only be averted by convincing enterprising men that the United States is not about to enter upon a policy of cheapening or lowering values. If this conviction cannot be produced we shall have to take our medicine, as we did during Cleveland's second administration, even if we have to take it in soup dispensed by charitable associations.

OBITUARY.

HON. JOHN W. WHEELER, for several years past one of the Vice Presidents of the Home Market Club, died at his home in Orange, Mass., on May 2, after a brief illness, aged 77 years. He was president of the Home Sewing Machine Company, and one of the pioneers in the manufacture of sewing machines in this country. In 1876 he served in the Massachusetts Legislature, and was a member of the Governor's Council in 1906 and 1907. He was president of the Orange National Bank and a director in many other financial institutions. He was held in high esteem by all who knew him. A wife and one daughter survive him.

HON. THOMAS Goodall, pioneer plush manufacturer in this country, died suddenly of heart failure at his home in Sanford, Me., May II, at the advanced age of 87 years. He was born in Dewsbury, England, in 1823, and came to this country in 1867, settling at Sanford, where he established an experimental plant known as the Sanford Mills for the manufacture of plush. It proved successful from the start, and gradually grew to such proportions that today the factory employs 3,000 hands, and the output comprises all the plush that is used in the upholstery of cars in the United States. The factory also manufactures plush carriage robes. Mr. Goodall retired from active business about fifteen years ago, relinquishing the conduct of the mills to his sons, Colonel Louis B. Goodall, who is a member of the governor's staff; Hon. Ernest M. Goodall and George B. Goodall.

Mrs. Goodall died last winter at the family's winter home in Florida. Mr. Goodall had done much for Sanford, his last gift being $50,000 for a town building. He was a long-time member of the Home Market Club.

THE MENACE OF SHOE IMPORTS.

From the Shoe and Leather Reporter.

The following comment on conditions in the European shoe manufacturing field should be of interest to the trade of this country. The correspondent is a machinery producer who has recently returned from a visit to England:

Vineland, N. J., Apr. 26, 1910. Editor Shoe and Leather Reporter: Our Mr. W. B. Keighley has just returned from Europe where he placed a number of machines and established agencies for the sale of our products. He visited representative factories in England, France, Switzerland, Bavaria and Germany.

He states that American shoe manufacturers have a great deal to fear from foreign manufacturers. They are using the latest up-to-date machinery and the working people are fast becoming quick and expert. Labor will become expert at a more rapid pace than wages will advance. American manufacturers will be up against the real thing as soon as the English labor unions take off their wage, time and speed restrictions and allow their members to work more hours and up to their individual capacities. Some of the finest shoe machinery in the world is made in England, France and Germany, and is non-royalty. This is a factor in cheaper production. Many Americans think the old world is at a standstill. This is a great mistake; they are in many things a long way in advance and in others are making rapid strides forward, especially in shoe manufacturing.

Some of the things that will help us to hold our own are: Absolute freedom for our work people to attain the highest efficiency and speed; a lengthening rather than a shortening of hours of work; the free use of machinery without being restricted as to its use, kind or make; more laws for the benefit of shoe manufacturing; the realization by the labor unions that they must forget to fight the shoe manufacturer, but must with him face an invader, well equipped, well armed, aggressive and determined on getting our markets. Then we must have a higher tariff on shoe imports; the lowering of the tariff on shoes has opened the door for foreign makes. Lastly, criticise foreign shoes as they will, the fact remains that they are well made, they are being better made each year, they will be made better still. The cloud is now only the size of a man's hand; it grows ever, and if a strong favoring breeze as outlined does not spring up in the American shoe manufacturers' favor it will become a storm.

Respectfully yours,

The Keighley Company, Inc.

TARIFF MAKING BY DEMOCRATS.

From the Morristown (N. J.) Republican. It has often been charged that the Democratic party is too disorganized to make a tariff, but this is an over-statement. The Democrats in 1846 did succeed in making a tariff which cut the

throats of a number of our manufacturers. In 1857, Guthrie's tariff brought on the panic under which skilled mechanics were lucky if they got half wages, and government bonds were on the damaged counter. In 1894 we had another tariff made by Democratic hands, and the opinion of the country was expressed by electing more Republican Congressmen south of Mason's and Dixon's line than Democrats north of the same. The Democrats can make a tariff, but will they make a tariff worth making? Does the experience of the past warrant another experiment?

VERMONT AND THE TARIFF.

From the Springfield (Vt.) Reporter.

The impression has gone abroad that Vermont has become a hotbed of insurgency and is clamoring for a further revision of the tariff. Such, however, does not appear to the Reporter to be the fact. In the first place there never was any very general demand in the State for the revision of the tariff at all, but it having been revised, we find the farmers of Vermont never so prosperous as today. Our mills and factories are running full time. Our inexhaustible quarries of marble and granite are being more and more opened and are thus adding to the state's wealth and prosperity.

The demand for labor has so increased that every man finds employment. The deposits in our Savings Banks month by month show a healthy increase and what is more. this money is being loaned and used to develop and extend the manifold industries of the State. With these facts before us we are strongly of the opinion that any proposition looking to the reopening of the tariff question would be overwhelmingly defeated if submitted to the