cense system in Great Britain are very clearly set forth in the following extract from the New York Evening Post's foreign correspondence which was published in January 12 issue of that paper: "Experience of the system during and after the war has aroused intense hostility to it as virtually the worst form of a subsidy. The calico printers, in particular, say they must have their dye when the goods are ready and not when an expert has decided whether they are to have it or not. They are not prepared to produce samples with dyes of which there is no certainty of supply six months ahead when the goods are required. Moreover, this method would check, not encourage, the development in this country of a wide range of color production. British dyemakers, with a guaranteed market and foreign competition ruled out, would devote themselves to continuing the production in bulk of the commoner and less complicated dyes and would be unwilling to leave the beaten track for costly and speculative experiments in producing new colors for markets which have hitherto been supplied by foreign makers with an established reputation for those colors." It will be observed that the British dye users have actually experienced the same difficulties which have been so clearly foreseen by the dye users of this country. In fact they have had troubles which our users have not foreseen, but which might well occur in this country under a licensing or embargo system, or a combination of both systems, which is the plan proposed. This system places the industries using dyes under the practical control of the dye manufacturers. The idea that one industry shall exercise a virtual control over other, and, in this instance, vastly more important industries, is repugnant to American ideals. The party of FreeTrade has attempted to "control" almost every line of business, regulate prices, dictate the amount of output, and has even gone to the length of attempting to control the amount and character of the food which we shall eat and the liquids which we shall drink. Americans do not like that policy and the party of Protection proposes to abolish unnecessary control, believing that "that country is best governed which is least governed." We need an adequate Protective Tariff, one which shall contain an efficient antidumping provision, also a provision for eliminating, for customs purposes, the effect of the depreciation in foreign exchange. With such a Tariff the domestic producers of dyes need fear no German or other foreign competition, while the users of dyes will be enabled, without having to submit to burdensome and unjust control, to secure the dyes which the exigencies of trade make it necessary for them to use. Drastic legislation to restrict alien immigration is all right as far as it goes, but to compel foreign laborers to remain at home and then permit their shoddy industrial products to be dumped on our American markets will vitiate all the force of such legislation. Let us have a Protective Tariff at once to put a stop to this industrial murder. Tariff Retaliation. There are those who profess to be very considerate of the feelings of foreign producers of competitive products and who fear to hurt those feelings by the imposition of a Protective Tariff which shall place their products on a parity with our own. Not only, is it claimed, should their feelings be carefully shielded but we must sacrifice ourselves, our own industries, our own workmen, our own productive industries, because of the great needs of those countries which have been at war. It is all right to be careful of the feelings and the rights of others. That is one of the elements of purest religion. But we, too, have been at war, and there are thousands of our boys who went "over there" and fought in our armies, not only that the rights of our citizens might be maintained, but also that the liberties of other nations might be preserved. We did not fight for our own rights alone, but for the rights of humanity. We were fighting the battles of the world. Many of these boys who "fought in France" are now out of employment, chiefly on account of the immense importations of foreign products which have crowded our own products out of our own markets. They have been able to do this because their costs of production have been so much lower than ours. Will some patriotic Free-Trader tell us why our boys should longer suffer, should suffer for the necessaries of life or else be the objects of charity, simply in order to enable the people of other nations to send their goods into this country and crowd our boys out of employment? Individuals may sacrifice themselves, but a government is not an individual and no government has the right to sacrifice the interests of its own citizens so as to further the interests of the people of other nations. The most which the people of one country should ask of another country is exact justice. That much every government owes to the people of all countries. There are those, too, who argue against an adequate Protective Tariff because they fear reprisals on the part of other nations in the way of higher customs duties on our products. Naturally we do not look with equanimity upon any discrimination against us, but other governments are quite within their rights when they regulate their own Tariff rates, provided they treat all alike. But they do not all do this. In fact, very few of them do so. The United States is almost alone in this respect. We talk about injuring our export trade to Canada by increasing our rates of duty on agricultural products which are being imported from there in unprecedented quantities. But do we stop to consider that Canada habitually discriminates against us in the matter of customs duties? Canada grants lower Tariff rates on imports from no less than sixteen different countries than she does on those from this country. That is exclusive of the Tariff concessions made to the United Kingdom and the British colonies and dependencies. Nor do we notice that Canada hesitates to impose any restrictions which she sees fit to impose on exportations to this country nor on rates of duty on imports on goods from this country. She imposes such restrictions and such rates of duty as she pleases without consulting our preferences in the matter. Some have advocated a special leniency with regard to imports from France. The mutual friendship between France and the United States is traditional, and we hope it will never be disturbed. That friendship, however, does not prevent France from increasing her Tariff rates, nor in placing an embargo against the importation of our goods. She has very recently increased her Tariff rates many fold. Here are some of the percentages of in crease: Cotton thread, 500 per cent. Tulles bobinets, 400 per cent. Other nets, 600 per cent. Cotton knit goods, 500 per cent. Embroideries, 350 per cent. Felt hats, 300 to 500 per cent. Trimmed sailors, 600 per cent. Carded cotton, 150 per cent. Iron and steel and machinery, other than agricultural, 150 to 300 per cent. Did France, before she made these great increases in her customs rates of duty inquire of the United States if such rates would be perfectly satisfactory to us? Did she stop to consider whether the increases would cause us to retaliate by increasing our rates? Did she stop to consider whether it might cause us to cut down our importations from France? No, she imposed such rates of duty as seemed to her to best meet her needs, and that is exactly what we in this country should do. Let us set it down as axiomatic that no foreign country is going to buy of us any products of which she is a competitive. producer. So far as her own products will supply her needs, each country will consume her own products. She will do this because her productive costs are less than ours, if for no other reason. We cannot hope to meet foreign prices in the foreign markets when we cannot meet them in our own market. We must be - satisfied with controlling for our own use "The best market in the world," the home market. We must be satisfied in the export trade to confine ourselves chiefly to those products in which we overshadow the rest of the world. In any event it is foolish to sacrifice the home market, which consumes 95 per cent. of our production, in order to maintain our foreign market, which amounts to only 5 per cent. of our production. We must attend to the needs of "America first." To do that we need an adequate Protective Tariff on all competitive products. John H. Eastwood It is with a feeling of profound regret that we record the death of John H. Eastwood, of Belleville, N. J. Mr. Eastwood passed away at his winter home in Miami, Florida, on January 11. He had been in poor health for several years, finally succumbing to an attack of heart disease, at the age of sixty-seven years. Mr. Eastwood was the principal owner of the Eastwood Wire Manufacturing Co. and of the Eastwood Chemical Co., both located in Belleville, N. J. Besides these properties he had large real estate holdings in Belleville and Paterson, N. J., and a summer home in Bay Shore, Long Island. His properties were inherited from his uncle, John Eastwood, lately deceased, who was also his foster-father. Mr. Eastwood became a member of the American Protective Tariff League in 1905, and was elected to its Executive Committee on January 29, 1909, continuing in this position until his death. Mr. Eastwood was a national Protectionist who was as much in favor of an adequate Protective Tariff on the products of agriculture as on his own. He was an American of Americans. The funeral services were held at Trinity Cathedral, Newark, N. J., on January 17th, and the official committee representing the American Protective Tariff League consisted of: Mr. Eugene Merz, Mr. Julius Forstmann, Mr. William F. Brunner, Mr. Henry Doherty, Jr., Mr. Thos. A. Painter, Mr. William Einstein, Mr. Leon O. Hart, Mr. Thomas H. Hall, Mr Edwin W. Preston and Mr. Wilbur F. Wakeman. Business Failures. For the week ending January 13, and the corresponding week in previous years, the business failures in the United States are reported by Bradstreet's of January 15 as follows: Week ending Weeks corresponding Jan. 13, Jan. 6 to this week 1921 1921 1920 1919 1918 1917 New England 41 42 21 13 30 42 Middle.....100 98 23 32 58 72 Western ..108 64 32 44 58 68 Northw't'n 51 34 12 11 21 32 Southern 186 162 20 24 52 91 Far-western. 35 22 11 13 19 30 Total....521 422 128 137 238 335 Bradford, England, woolen manufacturers are greatly alarmed over wholesale cancellations of American orders for their goods. Perhaps our mill owners will be furnished an object lesson as our English competitors propose to force deliveries. They will get their money in most cases and our home mills can shut down. This is Free-Trade.-Boston Fibre and Fabric, 10.9.20. German Competition. Free-Traders deride the idea that importations from Germany can constitute any menace to domestic productive industry. Representative Rainey of Illinois twitted those who advocated Tariff Protection for domestic dyes of fearing the Germans now more than they did before the war. There is a good reason why this particular industry should do so, for before the war we had no considerable dye industry to suffer from such competition. But it is a fact that importations from Germany are increasing at a great rate. Not only are they coming in legally marked as of German origin, but they are being shipped in as the products of other countries. They are first shipped to such countries and trans-shipped to the United States. That importations from Germany constitute a distinct menace to our industries is shown by a letter of Angus W. McLean, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in charge of trade between this country and Germany, which was addressed to the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives. This letter was sent in answer to a request made by the Ways and Means Committee for information on the subject. Mr. McLean says that there is no restriction on imports into this country from Germany with the exception of "certain drugs, dyestuffs and chemicals," for the importation of which a license must be obtained. He also says that vessels are sailing from the United States directly to ports in Germany and from such ports directly to ports in this country. As evidence that they are not sailing in ballast on their return trips, but are laden with goods destined to this country, he calls attention to the fact that the imports from Germany for the month of October were of the total foreign value of $8,021,701, and that for the ten months ending with October, 1920, their total value was $75,771,411. Even if our trade with Germany did not for the calendar year 1920 approximate 100 million dollars, it would still be necessary for the Congress to provide ample Protection against those products which are peculiarly German, or of which Germany is ordinarily an important source of supply. Tariffs are not made for a day or a year, but for a term of years. and it is quite as necessary to legislate for the future as for the present, perhaps more so, in the long run. Germany will rapidly recover a great measure of her importance as a producer of competitive products. Not only are German wages and other production costs much lower than our own, but German industries are many of them subsidized by the government. Every possible advantage is given by the German government to export industries. The government even goes so far as to aid those industries which sell for export at a loss in order to break down foreign competitive industries. The losses are paid by the government itself and not by the individual producers. The aim of Germany has been not only the political, but the economic domination of the world and no means have been spared to bring about that supremacy. That is why Germany has been and will be our most dangerous European competitor in our own markets. The German menace is with us now; it will loom still larger in the future. Wages and the Tariff. We cannot see how any workingman can be a Free-Trader. If he is one, then it must be because he has no knowledge of the labor conditions in Free-Trade countries. Mr. A. C. Morrison of New York appeared before the Ways and Means Committee on January 11, on behalf of the carbon industry, and gave some interesting comparisons between wages in that industry in this country, England, Germany and Japan. His figures representing wages in this country were based upon the average of 4,000 carbon employes at the present time. They are paid, on the average, 66 cents an hour, or $5.28 per day. In England the wage is $2 per day, or $12 per week. In Germany, according to a report made on December 15, the wage was 65 cents per day, or $3.90 a week, taking into consideration exchange rates. In Japan the rates are slightly higher, at the present time, than they are in Germany. Naturally the wages paid in other industries vary somewhat from those paid in the carbon industry, but the relative rates between this country and the other countries named will not vary much. How can any workman wish to place himself on a parity with workmen who receive such wages? It must be evident to any thinking mind that, if there be no Protection afforded to the domestic industry, either the foreign producer will get the bulk of the business, or else the wages of the American workers must be reduced to about the same scale as that of the principal competing country. In either event the workman will suffer. The prosperity of a country is measured by the condition of its working people. If they have homes of their own, if those homes are well furnished and their families well clothed and well fed, then the country in which they live is prosperous. Wages paid in Great Britain are the highest paid in any great manufacturing Country, next to the United States, yet how do the conditions of the British working people compare with those of this country? You have only to ask any working man who has come from there, to learn that they are vastly inferior to conditions in this country. They do not own The policy of Protection means more to the workingman than to anyone else. It means better wages, better working conditions, better homes and surroundings, more of the things which go to make life worth living. The adoption of Free-Trade as the permanent policy of this government would change all this. In order to successfully compete with low wage countries, we must establish low wage conditions here. Not only must the wages be low, but the living conditions must be lowered. It would take a long time to save enough money to buy a home with wages at $3.60 a week, or at twice that. In fact the wage-earner would work and save a good many years before he could pay for a piano for his wife and daughters. It is true that, even in this country, the conditions are not perfect, but Free-Trade would make them worse. Not until the millennium shall arrive will conditions on this earth be perfect, but we can strive for perfection and more nearly attain it through the application of sound economics in our governmental policies. Not the least of these is the insistence on an adequate Protective Tariff in the interest of American labor and industry. Protection and Prosperity go hand in hand. "America first." A Fair Proposition. Various international banking institutions have made strenuous appeals for Free-Trade in agricultural and manufactured products, in the interest of foreign nations. The alleged reason for their pleas is the fact that Europeans are so greatly indebted to us that they will be unable to pay unless they can have a free market for their goods in this country. They claim that a Protective Tariff would exclude their goods and destroy their paying ability. The claim is also made that other nations who buy of us in considerable quantities would buy elsewhere if their particular products should be subjected to increased rates of duty. There are some unkind people who hint that these same bankers are attempting to use the United States Government as a collection agency in order to collect their claims abroad, but let that pass. What we wish to suggest is that the bankers themselves practice "Free-Trade." The reason for the imposition of a Protective Tariff is the fact that foreign goods are of lower production cost than ours, and that, if they should be admitted free of duty, our productive industries would suffer loss through inability to pay American wages and still compete with goods which are the product of wages which are but a fraction of those paid in this country. If these goods should be admitted duty free, no one will deny but that it will be at the expense of American industry. Permit us to suggest that the bankers themselves do business on a Free-Trade basis. Foreign exchange is much lower than ours, therefore the international bankers should aid foreigners to recoup by accepting the losses incident to accepting foreign exchange at par. That would be literally Free-Trade, and it is as fair a proposition as it is to ask domestic producers to suffer loss by yielding the domestic market to foreign producers, "without money and without price." Naturally the bankers will protest and claim that they cannot do as suggested because they cannot afford it. True, but neither can the domestic producers afford to accept the suggestion of Free-Trade made by the international bankers. If we were to lose either the banking interests or the producing interests of the country, there is not a person in the United States who would not promptly say, let the banking interests go but save the producers. The international banking and other Free-Trade interests are on a par with the patriotism of Artemus Ward, who was willing to "sacrifice all his wife's ablebodied relatives" in order that the Union might be preserved. They are willing that domestic interests should be sacrificed, so that their own may be subserved. Vacillating Congressmen. The country is now paying the price of Free-Trade foolishness. There never was, and never will be a Free-Trade policy that has any thought for home industry and production. Economic law is a cold business proposition. It must operate according to certain fixed standards. Self-preservation and determination are its most important precepts. No one will deny the fact that money is tight, business is at a low ebb, factories are closing, men are being laid off, production is being curtailed. Yet in spite of all this, there are still some foolishly optomistic persons, who by some mistake or misfortune, found their way into Congressional berths, and who persistently insist that Free-Trade is the panacea for commercial ills. If the United States is to play the role of doctor to Europe's broken down industries, in preference to maintaining the stability of our own industries, then by all means, Free-Trade is the prescription needed. when the adoption of measures for the welfare of the United States is contingent upon the acquiescence of foreign countries. What can we think of a Congressman or Senator chosen to represent the people of America, who, when confronted with a policy that has for its purpose the preservation of American industry and labor, exclaims, "What will Canada say to that?" or "What will Europe do?" Do we elect representatives to Congress to look out for the welfare of foreign countries, or do we send them there to guard our own American institutions? One would think from reading the arguments of some of these Free-Traders in Washington, that they were members of Parliament or foreign bankers, or the like, instead of members of an American Congress. They are so fed up on internationalism that they are blind to Americanism. What a fine specimen of weak-kneed gentlemen to be directing the destinies of a nation. It is obvious that those who are opposed to Protective measures are importers or are interested in import trade. Their bugbear is "retaliation." Why need we fear retaliation? That is the result of coercive measures only. The Protective Tariff policy is merely a levelling process. America is now at a disadvantage. European and Oriental countries are enjoying the benefits of selling here, while America should be enjoying those benefits. Something is radically wrong, when American producers cannot find a market for their products, and at the same time foreign countries are selling the same kind of products here. The cheapness of labor in Europe and the Orient is the chief factor in making this condition possible. For American labor, to compete with them, is impossible. The only remedy is to equalize the opportunity for competition. Protection does not aim to stifle competition. It wants competition, but of the fair variety, where all competitors stand on an equal footing, and not the kind that Free-Trade has brought us. A Chinese or a Japanese can live on a few cents a day. Is it fair to ask an American workman to compete with this kind of labor? An importer of commodities which can be produced here, is a drone on the industrial progress of the nation. He is not aiding production here. When goods are imported, the foreign country gets the money, our country gets the products, the foreign laborer gets a market for his product, while our American workman gets a lay-off because of lack of demand for his products. We need more 100 per cent. Americans in Washington. There are too many internationalists there for the good of our country. About the most prolific increase under We have come to a pretty state of affairs Free-Trade has been our troubles. Tariff Protection Not the Only Need. tive measure, or else duty must be estimated on the wholesale prices of similar merchandise in this country, as has also been proposed. Something besides an increase in duties must be provided in order to place our industries on a com Under normal conditions the only Protection needed by our domestic productive industries is an adequate Protective Tariff, but something beside Tariff legis-petitive basis with those of other nations. lation is needed at the present time. It would be more correct to say, however, that our Tariff laws need provisions to meet present conditions which are now lacking in such laws. That is one of the strong arguments advanced by FreeTraders against Tariff revision, one of the strong arguments in favor of the license and embargo systems. Were it not for the fact that there is a better way to meet present conditions, such arguments would be well nigh unanswerable. The London correspondent of the New York Evening Post in a letter which appeared in the January 8th issue of that paper, in discussing the difficulties which the English are experiencing in meeting German competition in dyestuffs, has this to say: "But the final argument against a Tariff today is drawn from the state of the exchanges, No tolerable Tariff, it is admitted, could counteract the difference in the rate of exchange." That will be the difficulty which the Congress will meet in attempting to adjust any Tariff to present world conditions. That is one of the reasons why the rates asked by different industries appear to be exorbitant, when in fact they do not equalize the differences in the foreign exchange in comparison with Our money. The most equitable method which we have seen proposed for offsetting the difference in the exchange values between our currency and the currencies of other nations is that proposed by Mr. A. R. Turner, of the Linen Thread Company, which is, in most respects, the same as that proposed by the National Association of Woolen Manufacturers. The proposition, in brief, is to estimate the foreign market values and the duties on the basis of the normal or bullion values of the metallic currency of the country from which the importation is made. The effect of this would be that the exchange values, for customs purposes, would be entirely disregarded. If an importation from Germany should be stated as of the total value of 1,000 marks, the marks would be taken to represent 23 and 8 tenths cents each, and not the approximate exchange value of one and onehalf cents. The total foreign value would be $238 and the difference between that and the exchange value would be paid into the United States Treasury and the duty to be paid would be estimated on the normal value, or $238. This would simply oblige the importer to pay duty on the same basis as before the war. It would have the same effect as "pegging exchange." Some such method must be adopted if our Tariff is to be effective as a Protec Otherwise we shall have lost the race before a start has been made. Bare Boat and Time Charters. The United States Shipping Board is considering whether or not it will consent to "bare boat" charters, or time charters. in connection with the leasing of its ships to private citizens. As its name implies, the "bare boat" charter simply charters the ship to the people who will operate it; the latter pay all of the expenses, hire the crews, keep the ship in condition, and run it as cheaply as they can. The "bare boat" charter policy has a tendency to drive Americans out of the ships, except where they are required by law, and it stimulates operators to hire Chinese, Lascars or the cheapest crews they can get. The time charter, on the other hand, furnishes the ship to the operator, with the officers and crew employed by the owners, fed by them, and all of the expenses of the operation borne by the owner, except ordinary charges in connection with loading and discharging, usual port charges and fuel charges. If the United States in earnest desires to establish young Americans as crews of American ships, regardless of the expense, they will lease their ships under time charters; but it is a less economical method of ship hire than bare boat chartering. It appears that the leasing of Shipping Board ships under time charters has made it easy for the Shipping Board to establish new lines from South Atlantic and Gulf ports, with ships of a size quite large for the meagre service they perform. The Government bears the heavy expense, and the burden is less on the operators than where a bare boat charter obtains. It is now pointed out that some of these newly established lines, which only thrive by artificially diverting trade and shipping from the big ports, notably New York, will either have to go out of business, or conduct their business with fewer and much smaller ships-that it to say, when the expense falls on the operators they would quickly go to the wall with the ships they are now operating under time charter, and the older and larger ports would automatically again “coine into their own." So, the great ports of the country are now being artificially deprived of business that legitimately should go to them, but the country at large is paying heavily for the artificial establishment of comparatively numerous lines from ports actually lacking the cargo business to justify such a number of lines. New York, for example, is being officially robbed of its shipping and commerce while it is paying a large part of the extra expense such robbery entails upon the nation! But New York was always a "good thing." AGRICULTURAL TARIFF BILL DOOMED. Free-Traders Planning FilibusterEffect May Be Passage, at Next Session, of Dingley or PayneAldrich Tariff as Interim Measure-Tariff Commission's Ambitious Program-Would Shape Legislation-U. S. Commercial Attache Sends Free-Trade Propaganda From Spain. Correspondence AMERICAN ECONOMIST. WASHINGTON, January 18.-The action of the Senate Finance Committee in adding new commodities to the Fordne Emergency Tariff bill increases the likelihood that the measure will die on the floor of the Senate, despite the favorable report of the committee. Less than forty legislative days remain and most of that time will be consumed in the consideration of appropriation measures. Only by unanimous consent could the Emergency Tariff measure be passed. Instead of unanimous consent, there is every promise that a large majority of the Senate will devote its time to filibustering against the Emergency bill. Plenty of ammunition is on hand for this purpose. Senator Harrison of Mississippi, one of the leading Free-Traders of the South, has already introduced "as an amendment to the Tariff bill" the proposed codification of the Federal Statutes, a bill of a thousand pages; the soldiers' bonus bill; a lengthy amendment to the Federal Farm Loan Act; and a longer measure concerning a Western reclamation project. The mere reading of these amendments-which can be avoided only by unanimous consentwould waste so much time that it is doubtful whether the Senate would agree to d'educting it from the short time available for the appropriation bills. It is not likely that the failure of the bill will have any real effect on the revision of the Tariff at the next session. It probably will help to emphasize the need for interim legislation and will call new attenton to the necessity of re-enacting cither the Dingley or the Payne-Aldrich schedules. No definite program on that subject has yet been promulgated by the Republican leaders of either House. They are still waiting for a suggestion from President-elect Harding. Last week's hearings of the Senate Finance Committee on the Emergency bill, and of the Ways and Means Committee cn the question of general revision brought out the conflict between importers and producers. In the Senate Committee sessions this conflict centered chiefly on the opposition of American soap manufacturers to a duty on imported vegetable oils. In the House it dealt with a longer list of subjects. In the earthenware schedules it concerned pumice stone and mica, but the Committee seemed little deterred from its apparent plan to put Protective schedules on all commodities. Besides the earthenware schedules, the week's hearings were devoted to the metal and wood sections of the proposed bill. The Committee was surprised by the request of representatives of the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce for a reduction in the importation duties on automobiles. These representatives advocated reciprocal Tariff agreements with other nations as a means of aiding in the development of foreign markets for American automobiles. They claim that at present foreign countries are imposing reprisal duties against American machines. The announcement of the United States Tariff Commission that it expects to take a decisive part in the Congressional labors of framing the new Tariff does not seem to have awakened a similar response on the part of the members of Congress who are entrusted with this task. The Tariff Commission has never won much sympathy from the Ways and Means Committee in the House, nor of the Finance Committee of the Senate. Both Committees have been willing to permit the Commission to submit information which it may have, but neither has paid much attention to the demands of the Commission. Just now, the declaration of the Commission seems to leave it much in the position of the famous widow who anrounced triumphantly to her son: "Johnny, I am going to marry Mr. Brown." "Bully for you, Ma," responded the young hopeful. "Does Mr. Brown know it?" The Republican Publicity Association has outlined the reasons for the lack of sympathy between Congress and the Tariff Commission. "It would be ridiculous," it says, "to require that a Tariff framed by Republicans should be along lines suggested by a Democratic Tariff Commission," and continues: "In a burst of self-adulation the U. S. Tariff Commission has issued a press notice assuring the public that its vigilance respecting the Tariff question has been unwavering, that the Ways and Means Committee now holding hearings on Tariff revision 'has before it regarding each industry included in each schedule comprehensive information unbiased by personal or political advantage or policy.' and that 'these reports, prepared by an impartial body, present without suggestion of Tariff policy or rates of duty the main facts and figures pertinent to Tariff legislation.' "Unfortunately, the Ways and Means Committee is not so certain that the Tariff data prepared and submitted to it by the Tariff Commission represent the findings of 'an impartial body, and that is one reason why the commitee is justified in considering the data as merely supplemental to what may be secured from the witnesses now appearing before it. If the Tariff Commission should feel piqued at being relegated to a secondary rôle in the matter of Tariff investigation, its members may thank the patron who appointed them, for Mr. Wilson's violation of the express provision of the law which authorized the Commission, by giving his own party adherents a preponderating influence in that body, naturally causes a Republican Congress to regard the board with suspicion. The "It would not be necessary to suggest in Tariff policy or rates of duty. words a zealous preparation of certain arguments, or the cautious suppression of pertinent facts would be even stronger than outspoken advice or suggestion in influencing the deliberations of a Congressional Committee which accepted with credulity as final the reports of the Commission on Tariff matters. And Chairman Fordney and l's right-hand men have not yet given evidence of being too credulous. They propose to find out things for themselves, and if there is anything in the Commission reports which may amplify the information obtained from witnesses it will be given due consideration. The attitude of the Republican members of the committee is to ac cept all things and hold fast that which is good from the viewpoint of national prosperity. a "The bootlessness of a Tariff Commission beholden to the executive branch of the Government for its existence is very likely soon to be illustrated. For many years there was a redhot propaganda throughout the country for Tariff Commission 'to take the Tariff out of politics.' A great many Republicans surrendered their convictions to what seemed to be majority opinion, and gave President Taft authority to appoint a Tariff Board, which he did in 1909. The board did good work, but a Democratic majority in Congress meanwhile came in, and the reports of the Board were ignored. Then the Democrats, who had bitterly opposed the Board, were commanded by Mr. Wilson to provide a Commission. Mr. Wilson himself had, with that facility characteristic of him, changed his mind on the question. A Democratic Commission was appointed, and a Republican majority now cortrols Congress. History is about to repeat itself, as it should, "Once again let it be said that the Tariff can not be taken out of politics so long as two schools of thought exist on the subject and those two schools are represented in Congress. But, if it is the popular will that a Tariff Commission should exist, then it should be under the immediate direction of Congress, cooperating with that body, and assigned by Congress to such research and report as Congress may require." Because of increased values of imported wares, the Spanish Government made important changes in its Tariff schedules. Evidently this did not please C. H. Cunningham, our commercial attache there, for he hastened to send to the Department of Commerce a resume of the unfavorable criticism directed against this action. It all sounds strangely like the Free-Trade attacks in this country against every suggestion of a return to genuine Protection. "There is dissatisfaction," writes Mr. Cunningham "because it is universally recognized that it will contribute to the increased cost of living in Spain. It is also recognized that this reform will bring about increased Protection within a highly Protective system already in force, and there is said to be also the possibility of error in the selection of the items to be increased and in the fixing of the rate itself. While the general object of this added Protection is to discriminate against articles of luxury, such as automobiles, wherein the increase in some cases is 200 per cent., there are some articles, such as cotton and woolen textiles, footwear, hats. caps, umbrellas, raincoats, rubbers, etc., which are not articles of luxury, and which have come to be used increasingly by the middle class. The industries noted are not of such importance yet as to supply the Spanish market entirely, and producers of these goods are alleged to be already sufficiently protected by the old Tariff. This Tariff therefore, in these particulars, will result in greater expense to all classes of society, because these articles are of everyday use and of actual necessity. "Therefore it is evident to many of the Government's critics that the definite result of the Tariff increases will be to foster a Protection which favors certain industries and regions to the detriment of others. It is stated that this new Tariff does not treat of Protection of national industry, nor can it be a part of a permanent Tariff system wherein the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad is the leading basis for action; but this particular law purports to defend certain Spanish products which are the object of unjust treatment in the foreign market and to discriminate against the products of those countries which place Spanish articles at a disadvantage. It is also stated that one of the purposes of this decree is to prevent the depreciation of the Spanish peseta by the indirect method of restricting importations. "One possible danger which may result from this Tariff change is that if prices increase under this new margin of Protection a restriction of consumption will result, which will aggravate the difficulties which some industries have already met in their efforts to maintain their output. It is possible that the Spanish industries, which it was the aim of the Government to protect, may, therefore, be permanently crippled and that those industries will foster and not diminish the importation of foreign goods. It is not currently believed that this action on the part of the Spanish Government will have the result of forcing countries exporting the products in question to change their attitude toward the Spanish products. "It is believed that this new Tariff will give rise to many new difficulties and that the beneficial effects will in no sense compensate for the harm done. There is no question but that the Government will for a time make immediate profit out of this new Tariff." Probably the Free-Trade representatives of foreign nations at Washington will send similar reports to their governments when Uncle Sam replaces the Protection walls of American industries. OSWALD F. SCHUETTE. As a sample of the "efficient Americanism" and "respect for the public welfare" of which our Free-Trade friends boast, Federal Judge Kenesaw M. Landis has scored President Wilson for commuting the prison sentence of James Dorsey, the Illinois millionaire cattle dealer, convicted of using the U. S. mails to defraud. In the suit Dorsey was charged with selling 12,000 head of common cattle stock, which he advertised as genuine pure-bred Holsteins, on the sale of which he cleaned up the sum of $120,000 a year. According to Judge Landis, Dorsey hired an old horse doctor to sign blank test certificates, though it was proven in open court that the cattle were suffering from tuberculosis. Dorsey was sentenced to eight years in the Federal Penitentiary, and the case affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Dorsey scattered these diseased cattle all over the country, and complaints were sent in to the courts from Mexico to Alaska. In view of the Constitution which says, "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States" who must swear "I will faithfully execute the office," it would seem that President Wilson has about completed the execution of his office. In fact, such commutations as the one complained of by Judge Landis, have almost killed constitutional government. Restore the Protective Tariff. Under the near Free-Trade policy of the administration customs warehouses in our ports are jammed full of manufactured articles of foreign made goods and soon American workmen will have to face this contingency. Only a restoration of the Republican system of Protection can ward off the calamity and that will no doubt be one of the first acts of Congress after Harding's inauguration. The policy of Protection for revenue only has caused a loss of $2,000,000,000 to this country, a sum that müst be made up by taxing the American people. Under a Republican Protective Tariff the rate of duty was 20 per cent., but it has fallen to the low ebb of 6 per cent.. so that it is clear in what direction the path of duty of the Republican party lies. It must protect the wage earners and farmers if real prosperity is to be restored.-Pueblo (Colo.) Indicator, 12.4.20. The trade balance shows America that she is slipping into a condition that will mean ruin or serious impairment to some of her industries. Our market failing and foreign goods, made in countries where labor is not kept on the same high standard we set for it, competing with our own products, how are we to live? |