tect the importer rather than the manufacturer; voted to protect an interest which, although probably legitimate, gives employment to but few men, adds not one dollar to the value of the goods it handles, but which does manage somehow to extract as many profits as possible out of them, thus making the cost greater to the consumer. Fortunately the Morrison tariff bill failed to become a law. American satteens are still at the head, and the price, which seven years ago was 75 cents per yard, is now about 30 cents. The Democratic party would protect the importer. The Republican party would protect the manufacturer. The real difference in the two policies will be better understood when it is remembered that where the importer gives employment to one man the manufacturer gives employment to a hundred. Verily, what a magnificent robber the American manufacturer has become! The Free-Traders' programme to rob the farmers. answer that I have no need to interpose the manufac turing interests in stating the progress and development of the West. For in twenty years of protective tariff wealth has increased in a far greater ratio in the agricultural States of the West than in seven manufacturing States which I have adduced in the East. In 1860, for instance, the six Western States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska had a population of two and a half millions (2,500,000), and an aggregate wealth by the census of 1860 of eight hundred and seventy millions of dollars ($870,000,000). To-day they have a population of per. haps eleven millions (11,000,000), the equal of New England. We cannot give the statistics of aggregate wealth either in the West or the East later than the census of 1880; but in the twenty years between 1860 and 1880 these six Western States had increased their aggregate wealth from eight hundred and seventy millions ($870,000,000) to six thousand three hundred and seventy-five millions ($6,375,000,000), an increase land had three times the population of these Western of more than seven-fold. New York and New EngStates in 1860, with an aggregate wealth of thirtyseven hundred millions ($3,700,000,000). To-day the population of these States is about the same as the between 1860 and 1880 increased only three-fold, Western States, while their wealth in the twenty years amounting in 1880 to eleven thousand two hundred development between the manufacturing States of New and eighty-six millions ($11,286,000,000). The ratio of York and New England has, therefore, not been half so rapid as that of the six agricultural States which I amount of cash to the credit of the wage-workers; but have named. They have not, it is true, the same they have, in great and flourishing cities, in long lines values in great cities, in new towns, in the prodiof railways, in improved farms, in the increased Now let us see how they propose to help the farmer. By removing the duty from nearly every thing the farmer raises, thus compelling him to share his valuable home-market with the Canadian farmer. By making wool free, and thus bringing him into direct competition with the whole world. Mr. Curtis tells us in one of his latest editorials, that free wool is a necessity with us, as we annually consume 600,000,000 pounds, and don't produce half that quantity. This must be a wild estimate, because only five years ago we produced 325,000,000 pounds, which was within eleven per cent of our consumption. Workingmen's clothing, blankets, flannels, etc., were then as cheap as they are now. At that time, at the solicitation of the free traders and importers,—the people never asked for it,-Congress reduced the duty on wools, the effect of which was to cripple the home manufacturer and benefit the foreign manufacturer correspond-gious products of grain, in the countless flocks and ingly, by increasing importations. In one year the number of our sheep was diminished 6,000,000. In 1883 we imported but eleven per cent of our wools. Last year we imported over thirty per cent. Then we were becoming year by year more independent of foreign wool growers. Now we are becoming more and more dependent upon them, and nobody except importers and foreign interests has been benefited. If this is the result of a reduction of the duty on wool, what will be the result of free wool? If this is the way they propose to help the farmer, what would they do if they wished to harm him? PART II. The Western Farmer and Southern In his speech at Bangor, Me., Aug. 23, 1888, Mr. Blaine, after proving the prosperity, as shown by the savings of the protected American wage-laborer [see Chapter VI.] in the Eastern States, as compared with the savings of the unprotected British workingman, proceeded to say: Prosperity of the Western Agricultural States under Protection. But the Democratic advocate of free trade thinks that he can escape from the crushing force of these figures by his favorite cry that these earnings of the laboring man in New York and New England have been made at the expense of the agricultural States in the West. I first answer that manufactures are so rapidly spreading that there are no longer agricultural States in the sense in which that term was used a generation ago. Under a protective tariff manufactures are springing up everywhere, and already some States in the West-notably Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois-have an annual product from manufactures herds, an increase of agricultural wealth to which the expense of the Western farmer under a revenue tariff bears so slight a comparison that it can hardly be stated. Prosperity of the Southern States under the Republican Tariff. Lastly, the objection to the conclusions I present the interests of his section, is urging the revival of comes from the Southern Democrat, who, forgetting free trade. He considers that the South has been robbed for the benefit of the North; and, hugging this monstrous delusion, he strives to place the Union back under the old free-trade systems of the antebellum period. Yet the beneficent effect of a protective tariff can be even better illustrated by the recent history and development of the South than by the progress of the North. By the census of 1860, seventyone years after the Federal Government was organized, the Southern States, or, to describe them more accurately, the slave-holding States of the Union, had acquired property amounting in the aggregate to six thousand eight hundred millions of dollars ($6,800,000,000). One-third of this total amount, or certainly over two thousand millions of dollars ($2,000,000,000), was reckoned as the value of the negro slaves. Eleven of these States went into rebellion, at the end of which they had lost the institution of slavery, with all of its assured money value. They had used up four annual crops for war purposes. They had lost all their ready money and their stocks. They had lost a quarter of a million of the youth of their land, and had disabled as many more. They had subjected all their fair and blooming section to the blighting and devastating influence of the sword to as great a degree as the Seven Years' War had inflicted on Prussia, or the Napoleonic struggles had on France. Coming out of the war in 1865 defeated, discouraged, almost destroyed, the Southern people set to work under the influence of the protective system, made good the two thousand million dollars ($2,000,000,000) which they had lost in slaves, repaired the ravages and damages of war, and in the short space of fifteen years they had acquired, by the census of 1880, twenty-one hundred million dollars ($2,100,000,000) of property more than they had possessed by the census of 1860. If the financial and industrial condition of the South could be ascertained to-day, they would be found to have two and a half to three times as much property as they had on that PART III. Some of the existing duties that protect the farmer - Free Trade percentage tricks to mislead him. Should any farmer be foolish enough to believe that he is not protected by the present Republican Protective Tariff, let him glance at the following list of dutiable articles, with amount of duty appended, on some of the products of the farm, and then ask himself how he would feel in the event of the anti-protective Mills bill becoming a law? Animals, live, 20 per centum ad valorem. Wheat, 20 cents per bushel. This list contains articles that the Mills bill puts on the free list, that it allows to remain as they are, and that it reduces, and is a fair and illustrative selection of the whole. Under the present tariff the average duty on the ten articles is 47 per cent and a fraction, just what the Democratic Free Traders claim. If the Mills bill passes, the new dutiable list will contain only four of these articles, sugar, rice, cutlery, and earthenware, the average reduction on which, as shown by our table, is 7 per cent and a fraction, just the reduction claimed by Cleveland, Mills & Co. The fair way to strike the average would be on the ten articles in both cases, and that would make the average of the present tariff 47 per cent, and of the Mills bill 24 per cent, and a careful examination of the whole bill shows, as we have stated heretofore, that the reduction, based upon all the articles that have been free-listed, is just about 23 per cent. The Philadelphia North American, replying to the Free Trade Philadelphia Times, further ventilates the percentage tricks of the Free Traders as follows: In order to give the right a chance to prevail, will the Times kindly state how it figured out that 42.49 per cent business? When a Free-Trade Democrat reechoes that 42.49 per cent story, and is asked to explain Barley, pearled, patent, or hulled, one-half cent per what he means, he colors up and refers you to the Butter, 4 cents per pound. Lard, 2 cents per pound. Rye and barley, 10 cents per bushel. pound. Indian corn or maize, 10 cents per bushel. Rye flour, one-half cent per pound. Wheat flour, 20 per centum ad valorem. Potato or corn starch, 2 cents per pound; rice starch, 2 cents per pound; other starch, 2 cents per pound. Rice, cleaned, 2 cents per pound; uncleaned, 1} cents per pound. Rice flour and rice meal, 20 per centum. Hay, $2 per ton. Honey, 20 cents per gallon. Hops, 8 cents per pound. Milk, preserved or condensed, 20 per centum. Potatoes, 15 cents per bushel. Vegetables, 10 per centum. Vegetables, prepared or preserved, 30 per centum. The "Seven" Percentage trick of the Free 66 The disingenuous pretence of the Democratic Free Traders that this is not a contest of principle but only of seven per cent" reduction in tariff rates is well exposed by the Cleveland Leader, thus: The most deceptive misrepresentation of the Free Trade organs in regard to the Mills bill is that which asserts that the bill only proposes an average reduction of 7 per cent in the whole dutiable list, from 47 to 40 per cent, and that, therefore, it cannot be very injurious to the industries of the country. For the purpose of illustration we will take ten leading articles on the tariff list, and show how they are affected by the Mills bill and its alleged "average reduction" of 7 per cent as follows: Times, and then when the Free Trade mathematical machine is called upon, it blushes not, neither does it reply, but goes on grinding out the same old falsehood. One Free Trader called upon did make an effort to answer the question, and here is his example: 1... 60 per cent. Duties. Industries. 1.... Total....430 per cent. "430 divided by 10 equals 43 per cent. The Mills Bill comes along, strikes off the duty on the first five industries, and allows it to remain on the last five. What would be the true and honest method of ascertaining the per cent of duty remaining? It would be as follows: Articles. 1... Duties. 15 1... 1..... 30 per cent. 1.. 0 per cent. 1.... 1.... 1.. 40 per cent. 50 per cent. 60 per cent. Average......47.3 on 10 articles. 60 on 4 articles. 7 1.. "215 divided by 10 equals 21.5 per cent. It is, however, a sin of the greatest magnitude that men who set themselves up as public teachers will resort to tricky arithmetic when the livelihood and happiness of this great nation of workers are at stake. The arithmetic in both of the examples is impracticable, for in neither case does it protect the industries which the Free Trade Mills bill opens to Free Trade competition. No matter what the arithmetic makes the average, the industries killed by the Mills bill do not share in that average. "When the Mills bill throws you out of work and out of wages, and your children are crying for bread, precious comfort it will give you to learn that your neighbor over the way is feeding his children with a big percentage of ham and eggs." PART IV. Increase in Farms, Farm Acreage, Farm In the House of Representatives, April 29, 1884, Hon. Frank Hiscock of New York made a speech in which he proved the enormous increase in American farm production and the advancement in price of farm products under the Republican American protective system. Said he: The enlargement of production since 1860, from the increase of agricultural machinery, from the stimu. lus to home consumption by extension of manufactures and greater ability to consume largely through high wages of labor, is a wonder to Americans as well as to the world at large, and from some of the state. ments made on this floor it would seem to be unknown to several participants in this discussion. greater proportion, from 422,704,975 to 750,343,981 The production of meat has been enlarged beyond the increase of numbers of cattle or the increment of population to be fed. Recent investigation in the Department of Agriculture has made the increase of value of cattle, by improvements in breeding upon the original stock, the sum of $287,000. The cattle exported from New York in 1881 averaged $93.65 and those from Boston $99.68, being mostly high-grade shorthorns, while the unimproved Spanish cattle exported from Florida averaged but $14.09 and those from Texas but $16.84. The cattle exported in 1860 averaged only $38.26 per head, while the exportation of 1882 averaged $77.93 per head. The price also indicates the great improvement in quality, as well as the stimulus of increased home consumption supplemented by the enlarged foreign demand. The Chicago prices of beeves in 1860 ranged from $1.90 to $3.75 per hundred; in 1882 extra beeves reached $6.85 per hundred. Increased Value and Prices. 1860 but $20,402,812. In 1881 it was $175,584,760. And now, sir, I propose to make a comparison of values and prices. In comparing the values of products of 1860 with those of 1880 the influence of railway extension and industrial prosperity are shown in their effect on prices. It is seen that prices of many products were high in 1860 on the seaboard, and low in the interior. In December of 1860 oats in New York were 37 cents per bushel; in Chicago, 17 cents. Corn was 68 cents in New York; in Chicago, 27 cents. Wheat was $1.35 in New York; in Chicago, 75 cents. The exports of animals in their products was in In 1880 the aggregate value of the products of agriIncrease in farms, farm-areas, and produc- culture was more than double the aggregate for 1860. The comparative values of some of the principal products are as follows: tion, 1860 to 1880. Production has increased in far greater ratio than farms or acreage. Corn advanced from a product of 838,792,742 to 1,754,591,676, or 109 per cent; wheat, from 173,104,924 to 459,483,137 bushels, or 165 per cent; all cereals taken together, from 1,239,039,439 to 2,697,580,229 bushels, or 118 per cent. Cotton, in 1860, had reached an unprecedented production with a rapidity that had been phenomenal. The crop of 1859 amounted to 4,669,770 bales. Though its cultivation almost ceased for four years, it had risen to 5,761,252 bales in 1879, and to 6,949,756 in 1882. Fifty years ago 60 per cent of our agricultural exports was cotton. Now, while it is nine times as much in value, it constitutes only a third of the values of agricultural exports. In the same time the increase in value of meat and breadstuffs has been thirty-fold. The exports of cotton were very heavy in 1859-60, amounting to $191,806,555 in value, but in 1883 the value was $247,326,721, though the consumption of And now, sir, I want to call attention to farm prices in 1860, 1880, and 1882. I think, sir, I have beard it said we could not obtain them; and now bear in mind it is not the seaboard price which is to controlit includes transportation from the farm but the price at the market point to the producer must be taken. I have worked this out at the cost of considerable labor, and I challenge its examination. If any one will take the prices current, at the nearest market in the various producing sections, of the various products, he will reach the same results; and while my average is lower than at some favored points he will find the prices for the different years will at the same points bear usually the same comparative relations to each other, and this must be remembered in the com. Butter and cheese production. The butter production of farms, as reported by the census of 1860, was 459,681,372 pounds. Inclusive of that, not entering into the farm enumeration, the entire product of the United States was about 500,000,000 pounds. In 1880 the amount returned from farms and factories was 794,672,071. The total product of the country was about 900,000,000 pounds. The average price of butter exported in 1860 was 15 cents. As only the poorer qualities were exported, the average farm price is a little higher than the seaboard price of export butter, and I estimate it at 16 cents. The range of recent prices is from 9 to 40 on the farm, with much higher rates for a small quantity of "gilt-edged" samples, yet the average is still low, but is not less than 21 cents for 1880 and 22 cents for 1882. The export price in these years respectively was 17.1 and 18.5 cents per pound. The production of cheese advanced from 103,633,927 pounds in 1860 to 243,157,850 in 1880. Including a little unenumerated, the actual production would be about 130,000,000 and 300,000,000 respectively. The average prices were about 94 cents in 1860, 91 in 1880, and 10.5 in 1882. There was a partial glut in 1880, which reduced the price. The export prices of cheese are a little higher than farm prices -10 cents in 1860, 94 cents in 1880, and 11.2 in 1882. As a rule prices of butter are much higher in recent years than twenty-five years ago. Cheese is now about 10 per cent higher, as an average. of the United States as disclosed by the census taken under the law. I inquire, first, as to the effects upon that class of population with which I have been identified, and which you say suffers most of the burdens and injustice. I find that the value of the farms of the country in 1860 was $3,200,000,000, risiag to $7,000,000,000 in 1870, and in 1880 to $10,197,000,000. The gross value of their products in 1860 was not returned, but is estimated at $1,400,000,000; in 1870 it was $1,800,000,000, and in 1880 $2,200,000,000. And just here let me re-enforce my statement respecting the growth of agriculture in this country by an extract from the British Agricultural Commission's report in 1882, in which this sentence occurs: "It is safe to say that for the last two years the agriculture of America has been at the very flood-tide of its prosperity." So even the census of 1880 has not fully told the magnificent story of our agricultural development under this system of "robbing" the farmers, our foreign rivals being the witnesses. But what is the condition of the same agriculture instead of being "robbed" by protection, have the under free trade in England, where the farmers, blessings of free trade? Let the great free-trade organ of England, the London Times, tell the story in its issue of April 19, 1882. Its four-column article is is a review covering thirteen years. It declares that under the title "Agricultural Decline in England," and stock, and a further loss of $20,000,000 in grain crops, England now has about $40,000,000 less value of liveirrespective of the falling off in yield per acre planted. the above statements illustrating the decline in agricul That paper says sadly, in summing up: "We present and their landlords to consider how far the facts contural wealth and production, leaving to farm occupiers stitute an indictment against their craft, or only a record of its misfortunes." Everything the farmer sells has gone up in price - Everything he buys has gone down. Representative Brumm, of Pennsylvania, in his speech before the House, May 1, 1884, Values of our farm production and an ad- said: vancement of prices. The value of all productions of agriculture for 1879, exclusive of about $400,000,000 of corn and hay consumed in the production of meat, was, approximately, $3,600,000,000. This includes all meat products, milk consumed, fruit, and various minor products not included in the census tabulation of 1880. Of this about $400,000,000 (farm value) was exported, leaving $3,200,000,000 for domestic consumption. This gives about 11 per cent for exportation, which is more than usual, the range of recent years being 8 to 10 per cent. In 1859 the production aggregated a value of about $1,600,000,000, of which nearly $200,000,000 was exported, leaving for home consumption a value of $1,400,000. The per capita value of this consumption is nearly $45 in 1860 against $65 in 1880. Again, Mr. Chairman, I invite the closest examination of the figures I have presented, and they prove, sir, an enormous increase in our farm production and an advancement of price. Increased value of farms and farm products in protected America-Agricultural decline in free-trade England. I remember very well, and I want you farmers to remember- I remember very well in my short lifetime when it took a good cow to buy a good cookingstove. To-day a good cow will furnish the best kitchen in the land with cooking-stove and all the utensils necessary for a well-regulated kitchen. I worked for years as a watchmaker, and I remem. ber well when it took a good horse to buy a good clock, and to-day the price of a good horse will set you up in a respectable watch and clock business. Clocks for a dollar. A good horse is all the way from $250 to $1,000. Why, sir, it used to take, in my short lifetime, a whole calf to buy a saw. To-day you can buy the best of Disston's make for the hide of a calf. I remember when it took a pound of the best butter to buy a pound of nails. To-day you can buy a pound of nails with a quart of skimmed milk. Yet you talk about protection to the farmer. Where has his commodity fallen in price? Every other commodity has fallen by reason of protection, while the farmer has always held his own, or rose steadily from year to year. Representative Browne, of Indiana, in his speech of April 30, 1884, on the Morrison Said Representative Kasson of Iowa, in his horizontal-reduction tariff bill, said, speech in the House, March 27, 1884: Has this [protective] system which you [free traders] so violently condemn impeded the development of the country? If I look in your books on political economy I perhaps should answer "Yes." I What is our own experience? I will not repeat the figures so often given, but the fact dare not be controverted that under our protective system labor and the farm product have constantly been advancing, while every manufactured product has been cheapen and more within forty years. Cereals, poultry, beef, pork, hay, the product of the dairy, every thing the farmer puts on the market has gone up, while woollens, cotton goods, hats, shoes, agricultural implements, every manufacture, indeed, the laboring man buys has steadily gone down. Mr. Chairman, I remember when, as a boy, forty years ago, I stood behind the counter of a country store in my district; we bought butter at from 5 to 10 cents per pound, eggs at 3 to 6 cents per dozen, chickens at 75 cents to $1 per dozen, pork at from $1.50 to $2.50 per hundred net, and other farm products at prices equally low. These products have advanced three to four hundred per cent since then. On the other hand, cotton fabrics, such as prints, brown sheetings, tickings, drills, etc., that sold then at 12 to 15 cents per yard, are to be had to-day in the same market for from 6 to 9 cents. There have been like reductions in the prices of lawns, cassimeres, cloths, flannels; but I need not give details, as these facts stand admitted. The conclusion is clear; we can safely continue a policy that has brought these conditions to the country. Dutiable agricultural products-The foreigner bears the burden of the duties which protect the American farmer. Representative Chace of Rhode Island, in his speech before the House, April 16, 1884, said: Below are the totals given in a table, prepared by the Bureau of Statistics, showing the amounts of dutiable agricultural products imported into this country during the years 1882 and 1883, and the rate and amount of duties collected on them. Among them are $4,000,000 worth of live animals, $12,667,000 worth of breadstuffs and farinaceous foods, $18,000,000 worth of fruit, nearly $1,000,000 worth of hay, more than $1,000,000 of potatoes, and $1,800,000 worth of provisions, including $939,000 worth of butter. Included in the item of breadstuffs is $1,893,406 worth of rice, the duty on which is a direct protection to the Southern farmer. East Indian rice is worth in bond in New York from 24 cents to 2 cents per pound wholesale, the duty being 2% cents per pound, and the average ad valorem rate last year being 114.8 per cent. The average duty on fruits was 25.35 per cent, on sugar and molasses 52.88 per cent, and 31.17 per cent of all the duties collected was on agricultural articles. A favorite method of figuring with the free-trade doctrinaires is to assume that if an article is imported on which there is a duty, that fact is proof that all such articles produced and consumed in this country are enhanced by so much. I annex a table, prepared by the Agricultural bureau, showing that the gross agricultural products of this country in 1882 amounted to $3,600,000,000; the average duties, being 31 per cent, would amount to $1,116,000,000: either an utter absurdity, or we are paying our farmers a great bonus. It is pure nonsense. The fact is, the foreigner generally pays the whole or a part of the duty on all years' standing, and I am to be read out of the party, am I? But to the members of this House I desire to address myself, to those who are talking of robbery, of plunder, corruption, stealing, and thievery. There is not a single article bought in the South, from the wagon that draws the farmer's cotton to the markets to the pin that his wife uses, that is not 100 per cent cheaper than it was fifteen years ago. No matter how wrong the principle of protection may be, that is the fact. I grant you that it is wrong, but the fact remains the same. It has cheapened every thing under God's heavens that men, women, and children use in this land every thing. And there is reason for it. ... Talk about the cotton of which my shirts are made. There is 50 per cent duty on that cotton. And it cannot be made anywhere on God's great earth except in New England; it cannot be made for the same money anywhere else. I know it; I assert it; I defy contradiction from anybody and anywhere. Take the Collins axes that have driven the English axes out of England and Scotland and Ireland, and the Swiss axe out of Switzerland, and yet there is a duty of 50 per cent on the Collins axes made in my county, their office under mine. There is not an axe that can be sold any. where on the face of the earth in competition with the Hartford axe, and yet they pay, permit me to say, to meet the argument of my friend from New York, they pay for what is called raw material — and it is not raw their iron and steel, and yet make an axe which has material; it is material, but not raw-they pay duty on driven every manufacturer of every other country out of the market. I assert it as a fact, for I brought it to the attention of the State Department when I occupied a very honor. able position in the other branch as head of a committee, that the trade-marks of Massachusetts and Connecticut are stolen by Great Britain to-day-four in my own State, and four in the State of Massa. chusetts; that she cannot sell her own wares in her own country without stealing the trade-marks of the United States. (Applause.) ... These are facts and ought to be known. Now a little story. Mr. Lincoln used to point an argument with a story. Suppose I do it, although I know it will not be as good as his stories were. There was a certain professor in my county, a theorist of the first water, a man who does not know any more about the practical tariff than I know about the Hebrew that he is well acquainted with. This professor came up into a large manufacturing village in my county to make a theoretical speech, such a one as my friend from Ohio (Mr. Hurd) delights in. There was a farmer standing by a post in the lecture-room, and the professor thought he might be a good subject to operate upon; so he said to him, "My friend, you are a farmer?"-"Yes."-"You live here?"-"Yes.""Do you know these manufacturers in this village are robbing you?" "Why, no, I do not know it. How can they rob me? I came here ten years ago with $500; I bought a farm, running in debt $2,500 for my farm and stock. I went to work raising truck for this village. I paid my debt and have got money in the savings bank, and do not owe any man a dollar. How have they ruined me?" The professor said, "Well, it appears you have been a hard-working man and have lived it through. But you pay six cents a yard duty for the very cloth your shirt is made of." "Well, proA Distinguished Democrat admits that fessor," replied the farmer, "you may think so, but you cannot prove it by your algebra or your loga. Protection Cheapens all Articles used rithms; you cannot prove it unless by Esop's Fables, by the Farmer and others- The Farm-for I did not give but five cents a yard for the cloth." (Great laughter.) er will soon Demand more Protection for the Home Market. articles. PART V. Representative and Ex-Senator Eaton, of Connecticut, in spite of threats to read him out of the Free-Trade Democratic Party if he dared to utter even a part of the truth as to the benefits of Protection, said, in his speech in the House, May 1, 1884: The duty, then, of the patriot alone has gone by. As a patriot alone I would not have this question before Congress; but now I come to it as a party man, a Democrat of forty years' standing Our farmers' foreign market vanishing before the competition of Russia and India. -They will soon want more protection for the home market. the House of Representatives, April 15, 1884, Representative Kelley of Pennsylvania, in said: I have said that our wheat-growers are in more danger from Russia than from India, and this is true. Southern Russia is one immense body of prairie land, as fertile as and in all respects resembling the rich |